!"#$%&'()'*+'(,-(./*++'0+(

#-"(12$'-3#4'-(

!"#$%&'&%()*$+,$)"#$#-(./01$23(45(01$.)+%6$)+$

7##)$0#8$,30%/+0&4$0##5.$

9*$!++0$:(;%6-$<=+"+;)>?$@AABC@A>AD$

E3'#;F(.+;$C$G&)"(#3$H&0$=;(#6(01#0$

E#%+05$I#&5#;$C$J#0;(6$I##"$

KLM=N$OKIPGNE!OI$ML$KI9NL$E!K:MOE$<Q=M!MOED$

GNE!OI$!JOEME$

5'$6'78'/(9:;:(

Toon Dirckx

Promoter Mathieu van Criekingen

Thesis research

Wed 1 Sep 2010

Abstract

Cities constantly evolve under the pressure of socio-economic changes. As flexibility is

one of the buzzwords of our time, one can ask himself what kind of effect this will have on

the rigidity of our built fabric? This study investigates the capacity of Brussels and Copen-

hagen to adapt and reuse their built fabric for other purposes (=adaptive reuse). Adaptive

reuse has positive environmental and social effects on its surroundings and is a sustain-

able way to meet the changing needs of a city.

The study is formed around a comparative research of the tensions between the dif-

ferent actors, institutional-, physical- and market-contexts of Brussels and Copenhagen.

The methods used during this research consists of a literature research studying the con-

ditions wherein adaptive reuse has to act, followed by an empirical analysis of adaptive

reuse for the three most important functions: housing, office and industry. This will allow to

make an assessment on future reuse and, where data allows it, make a geographical im-

pact analysis. An analysis of the actors furthermore enables to give an insight into possible

policy measures to support the sustainable process of adaptive reuse.

This study will prove that adaptive reuse carries an important capacity to guide the

functional change of cities without having much support from authorities, it furthermore

confirms that the historical city centres carry the physical characteristics to further guide

the process of adaptive reuse.

! 1

Adaptive Reuse in Brussels and CopenhagenThe capacity of the existing building stock to meet new functional needs

1.Introduction! 4

1.1.Flexible Cities ?! 4

1.2.Structure of research! 6

2.Acknowledgements! 8

3.Research Question! 9

3.1.Clarifying terms of research:! 9

3.2.New construction as alternative to reuse! 10

4.Methodology of research! 13

5.Conditions and actors in the process of adaptive reuse! 16

5.1.Physical limitations of the built fabric! 16

5.2.From Owners till Financiers of Adaptive Reuse! 20

5.3.Information as threshold! 23

5.4.Governmental Influence! 24

5.5.Locational factors! 26

5.6.Conclusions on Chapter 5! 26

6.Reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen: the case studies! 28

6.1.The legal framework for Adaptive Reuse! 28

6.1.1.Spatial planning control for Brussels and Copenhagen! 28

6.1.2.Rules for Construction Enabling or Disabling Reuse! 29

6.1.3.Taxes and subsidies for promoting reuse! 31

6.1.4.Procedure time - the project killer! 33

6.1.5.Strategic and Land-use Plans! 35

6.2.Actual reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen! 48

6.2.1.Overall conversions! 48

6.2.2.Adaptive Reuse of Housing! 53

6.2.3.Adaptive Reuse of Offices! 57

6.2.4.Adaptive Reuse of Warehouses and Workshops! 65

! 2

6.2.5.Conclusion on Adaptive Reuse in Copenhagen and Brussels!69

6.3.The Future of Adaptive Reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen! 70

6.4.Investors in Brussels and Copenhagen! 75

7.Conclusion! 78

7.1.Synthesis! 78

7.2.New possible research questions! 81

8.Bibliography! 82

9.Attachments! 90

9.1.Interview questions! 90

9.2.Three rings of municipalities used for Research (own)! 92

9.3.Concentration of offices in Brussels! 93

9.4.Office areas authorised for conversion by use category (1997-2008)! 93

! 3

1.Introduction

1.1. Flexible Cities ?

Flexibility is one of the buzzwords of our time. Fast technological development to-

gether with the rising interconnectivity speeds up processes and creates tensions within

society. One of the outcomes is the creation of the flexible society, where new organisa-

tional structures, flexible employment arrangements, novel working practices and changing

demands for transport facilities are rapidly emerging (Hinds, 2003). The nature and pace

of these changes inevitably alter the structure of cities (Kincaid, 2002) and exacerbate so-

cial polarisation between the rich and poor (Kesteloot, 2007). But how far does this con-

cept of flexibility influence the structure of our cities?

There are many different ways of looking at the flexibility of cities. From the design of

new and existing buildings, to the transportation, communication and other infrastructure,

all can be researched on their level of adaptability and flexibility (Heath, 2001). One aspect

jumps out when it comes to discussing its complexity: the flexibility of existing buildings be-

tween functions. While the flexibility of squares, transportation and services are primarily

controlled by the state; buildings to a large extent are the product of the citizens wishes

themselves.

Flexibility of cities here is approached through a focus on adaptive reuse, a process

where an existing building changes function without demolishing the core structure of the

building. It is flexible as a change back and forward is possible. Hereby adaptive reuse dis-

tinguishes itself from other urban changes, which can also happen by solely destroying

and reconstructing the infrastructure to supply new demands.

The constantly changing spatial arrangements of cities under inter and intra urban

competition are calling for adaptive reuse (Massey, 1978;1979). In some cases there is a

persistence of social and functional configuration, like the inner city working areas that

since industrialisation remained the house of many labourers until the start of Fordist pe-

riod when suburbanisation took off (Kesteloot, 2007).

These tensions not only could change the social classes who were using them, but

moreover fundamentally were able to alter the use of buildings. Turning old industries into

loft apartments is a nice example of a functional change under the power of socio-

economical change. Another example are the old mansions in the city centre, which could

be adapted to become office-space. These kind of changes are nicely described by Scott

(2008:17):

! 4

“In the city, uses and occupations migrate from quarter to quarter in quantum

shifts; the on-time brothel becomes software offices, the soap factory be-

comes artists studios (Scott, 2008;17).”

There are plenty more stories where one sees a building being converted into a never

expected function, but how does a building become subject to a change of function? At

one stage in life buildings undergo the process of becoming obsolete for their present use.

This can be a physical or economical obsolescence. The buildings structure and services

are deteriorated for its present function, the size cannot be sufficient anymore, the use

does not fit the social class in the surrounding or another use has become more competi-

tive for the location, etc... After becoming obsolete there are several thresholds for a build-

ing to be reused and house a new function.

Though when these are met, there is an array of positive impacts on its environment.

Adaptive reuse first of all considerably extents the life span of a building. Hereby it helps to

achieve a whole range of economic (saving building materials) and environmental goals

(saving greenhouse gasses), an opinion much shared by Tim Heath (2001), Rudlin and

Falk,(1999) the Department of the Environment (1996), URBED (1998) and the Urban

Task Force (1999). It furthermore also has positive social impacts by keeping the memo-

ries of a society alive. Adaptive re-use moreover promotes urban intensification by allowing

a mix of uses to re-enter mono-functional districts (Heath, 2001).

Still it is important to recognise that city centre regeneration through conversion of

buildings can also pose a threat. Relentless housing expansion by converting other uses

into housing, can lead to too much replacement of commercial and/or leisure facilities. This

is most likely where the economic circumstances are less buoyant and land values for

these supporting activities are more depressed. “When there is displacement and decen-

tralisation of activities, residentialisation can fail to be an effective sustainability strategy for

the local economy” (Bromley et al., 2005: 2425). The conversion of larger blocks further-

more may result in too high residential densities that have significant implications for build-

ing management and unacceptable pressure on local amenities (Gann and Barlow, 1996).

A flexible urban environment therefore can offer a lot of opportunities, but at the same time

can pose some threats and conflicts.

Urban management and planning decisions must be based upon maximum informa-

tion on the characteristics and special features of a city(The European Urban Charter,

! 5

2003). Knowing that change is inherent to cities and resources are not endlessly available,

studying the possibilities of adaptive reuse may open up new ideas for urban policies. Giv-

ing existing buildings a new function is of great relevance for the problems of the today"s

cities, which suffer under vacancy and mono-functionality, two problems adaptive reuse

might mitigate against. Above this, in the developed world more money is being spent on

changing buildings than on building new ones (Brand, 1994), having sufficient knowledge

about adaptive reuse therefore is of uttermost importance if local governments want to

continue guide city development.

Studies have been made on adaptive reuse, but this study will go deeper into several

aspects via a geographical and comparative approach. This research will investigate the

capacity of adaptive reuse to supply new functional needs. Hereby not only the idiosyn-

cratic characteristics of adaptive reuse and actors will be addressed, but also the environ-

ments and common characteristics of adaptive reuse will be investigated. This is possible

via a comparative study of the historical districts of two European cities; Brussels and Co-

penhagen. Both cities governed their historical districts in a structurally different way. The

office real estate sector in Brussels thoroughly changed the look of the central district while

Copenhagen has a well preserved historical city centre. Copenhagen moreover is known

as one of the most expensive cities in the world to live, while Brussels has a relatively

cheap housing market if one compares to other European Capitals (Coppens, 2010).

Brussels moreover has a tension between the expensive international office market and

the cheaper local housing real estate sector (Dirckx et al, 2009). These contrasts will have

an influence on the dynamics of adaptive reuse.

1.2. Structure of research

The research starts with the further elaboration of the research question. Hereby addi-

tional information on the concept of adaptive reuse will be given and structured in the

present-day context. In example, what are the advantages of adaptive reuse over new

constructions? During the methodology light is shed on the methods and case studies

used during the research.

Following the framework of research, a study on the most important conditions and ac-

tors examines the factors that are promoting and constraining the process of adaptive re-

use. This will help to understand the centrepiece of research: the study on the case stud-

ies of Brussels and Copenhagen. The research consists of a four-tier analysis: (1) an ex-

! 6

amination of the legal framework gives an idea of the theoretical flexibility of the city. How

are building prescriptions, spatial planning policies and land-use plans influencing adaptive

reuse in both cities? (2) an empirical analysis of adaptive reuse in the historical city cen-

tres of Brussels and Copenhagen. Hereby the capacity of adaptive reuse will be quantified

and localised for both case studies. (3) A further outlook for adaptive reuse is made in the

third tier of research. (4) A short investigation into the different actors who are active in

adaptive reuse will complete the research and enables to envision future policies.

The aim of this research is to find out to which extent cities functionally evolve via the

use of adaptive reuse. Hereby the tension between the theoretical and actual reuse is un-

covered. This study will prove that adaptive reuse carries an important capacity to guide

functional change of cities without having much support from authorities, it furthermore

confirms that the historical city centres carry the physical characteristics to guide the proc-

ess off adaptive reuse.

! 7

2. Acknowledgements

In good tradition, I want to give special thanks to people and their companies/

institutions who enabled this thesis. As first I want to give special thanks to Prof. dr

Mathieu van Criekingen, my promotor, where I had several brainstorms with that cleared

up my mind and put my research on the right tracks. As data was not easy to find, I am

happy to thank the people of: the #Review of Office Property", especially Sophie Coekel-

berghs; the GOMB-SDRB-BRDA, with Roblain Jessy and Hughes Verbrouck; and Statis-

tics Denmark who helped me with obtaining and understanding the data.

Also other interviewees, who gave me a look from the practical point of view and

helped me putting several theories to the test, are happily thanked.

I certainly do not want to forget Karolien, my moral support and also the girl who

helped you as a reader by searching for too complicated and bad structured sentences. As

last I want to thank any other readers and researchers who helped to bring this research to

a good end.

! 8

3.Research Question

The central research question of this thesis is: What is the capacity of the existing

building stock to be adapted to new functions in order to meet the new functional demands

of Brussels and Copenhagen?

The research question is based on the idea that Copenhagen and Brussels are con-

stantly undergoing a functional change whereby certain functions are decreasing and oth-

ers are rising in importance. The question of this thesis looks if functionally adapting and

reusing obsolete buildings might be a solution to meet these new needs.

3.1. Clarifying terms of research:

The capacity is determined by the ability of the actors to adapt and reuse existing

buildings together with the physical characteristics of buildings that (dis)allow a change of

function. By comparing the rate of adaptive reuse with the amount of new constructions,

the capacity of adaptive reuse can be proven.

City centres are distinctive places in cities (Gruen, 1964; Whyte, 1988; Gratz & Mintz,

1998; Rypkema, 2003 cited in Balsas, 2007: 234). Normally they coincide with historic dis-

tricts and are forums for civic life, but their main characteristic is that they are multifunc-

tional places (Kincaid, 2002). It is this organic mix of activities together with an intense

daily use that makes the city centre an interesting place to study adaptive reuse, as there

is a competition between different activities to be located here. The research focuses on

the historical city centres of Brussels (=municipality of Brussels) and Copenhagen (=first

district in Copenhagen, Indre By). Also its surrounding districts are taken up into the re-

search for comparative and practical reasons as data is not always available on municipal

or district level. A research stretching the whole municipality of Copenhagen and the Capi-

tal Region of Brussels furthermore allows the investigation of intra city trends.

Adaptive reuse means using parts of the whole structure of an existing building and

giving it a new function which differs from its previous use. “Typical five kinds of uses are

defined” (Kincaid, 2002; 5 ): Residential, retail, office, warehouse-industry and others (Ho-

tels, Public functions).In this thesis most observations will be linked with the interaction be-

tween residential, office and warehouses-industrial buildings. Functional reuse is synony-

mous to adaptive reuse and from now on can be abbreviated to reuse.

Adaptive reuse offers disused buildings an alternative to preservation or demolition by

giving them a new function and keeping it inhabited, occupied, ... an existence beyond

! 9

their time (Scott, 2008). The concept of reuse is highly connected to human society, how-

ever for a brief time of history it did not fit in. This period was the time of the functionalist

paradigm, which was ruling for a large part of twentieth century. During functionalism build-

ings were conceived in a particular framework and they were thought of not leaving it in

their lifetime (Scott, 2008). Except perhaps for a few exceptions, buildings during function-

alism either fulfilled their purpose or were demolished.

Functionalism had the idea of bringing stability to society, in present society this con-

cept cannot work anymore as functionalism cannot deal with future uncertainties as “form

follows function”.

Adaptive reuse opens up a world of fantasy, like having your office in an old mansion

or going on holiday in an old church. Reuse keeps buildings telling their old story and adds

a new one, it is like the geological metaphor on a micro scale. All previous functions leave

their mark and will influence the next function. The history of a building might engender

some kind of surprise and even self-reflection among present day users. After all this posi-

tive lighting of reuse, one cannot forget that ruination is inherent to the art of intervention,

and not merely as an expedient, required by building practices an client requirements

(Scott, 2008: 95). If ruination is part of the process, why reuse a building then?

3.2. New construction as alternative to reuse

The alternative to an adaptive reuse is replacement by a total new construction, where

the old one is demolished. The reasons for demolition are complex and do not correlate

with the age or the state of the buildings (Golton, 1997; Kohler & Hassler, 2002). Ironically,

buildings are considered to be in a bad state because their owners want to demolish them

(Kohler & Hassler, 2002). Instead, reasons for demolition are predominantly functional and

formal obsolescence and rising land values.

New buildings have the advantage of meeting the client needs in the most effective

way. Functions can be planned with minimal waste of space and a full use of 100 %. Reus-

ing an existing building means that the function will not fit the building tightly. A typical ex-

ample are the offices in older buildings. These buildings are divided into rooms by solid

supporting walls, creating spaces that are sometimes too large to fit one office and too

small to fit several. Modern offices, on the other side are open planned offices, which have

no supporting walls. Walls therefore can be placed and moved to fit client needs. Offices in

brick supported buildings therefore need 20-35% more space to get the same amount of

! 10

functionality as in new built-to-suit ones. This extra space represents an extra rent that

companies are not always willing to pay. For example, if one needs a 10.000 sqm office

building, a reuse of an existing brick building might need up to 3500 sqm more than a new

building without adding extra usable space (interview Anderson).

A new construction moreover offers the possibility to maximise profit as in a reused

building developers have to work within an existing frame and do not always have the op-

portunity to make extensions and develop the maximal allowed surface. On the other side

a fit to use is not available for everybody as there is not enough building capacity to serve

everybody instantly. For the UK case, changes in the quantity and quality of buildings over

a 5–10 year term mainly have to be accommodated by the existing vacant stock rather

than by new-build developments (Kincaid, 2002). This lag is related to the backlash be-

tween the changing requirements of users and the conception, construction and final use

of a building.

Vacant or partially vacant buildings represent a form of unemployment (Myers and

Wyatt, 2004), a study in Switzerland by Wüest (1995) estimated that the unoccupied in-

dustrial floor area alone amounted up to 10 years" worth of new construction. In Switzer-

land adaptive reuse therefore carries a huge capacity. Partially vacant premises moreover

are an underestimated phenomenon. For businesses in the United Kingdom alone, the

conversion of this space could save up to £18 billion a year (Drivers et al, 2003a). Also

other kinds of buildings are under utilised, creating a huge potential for conversion to other

uses.

The growing calls to limit new construction in favour of improving the existing stock

(Graham, 2003; Degreef, 2009) and even to completely stop constructing any additional

new buildings in industrial countries (Kohler, 1999) is therefore not a surprise. In devel-

oped countries one can see that construction activity only corresponds to 1,5 - 2% of the

existing building stock (Bullen,2007), which means that the replacement level is well above

50 years. Refurbishment, where adaptive reuse is part of it, therefore already plays an im-

portant role in keeping the urban structure up to date.

New societal values like sustainability are furthermore calling for adaptive reuse as this

circumvents the wasteful processes of demolition and reconstruction (Bullen, 2007).In con-

trast to new constructions, adaptive reuses can act as living memories of our cities and

societies. They keep the narrative of our cities alive and remind to an almost forgotten

past. Hence it is no surprise that cultural (68%) and heritage significance (83 per cent) are

! 11

two main factors that should be included in the decision process to asses the suitability of

a building for adaptation instead of demolition (Bullen, 2007). Recognisable elements cre-

ate attachment and awareness for citizens and furthermore help to characterise a city

(Lynch, 1960).

The adaptive reuse of offices or industrial sites can present an interesting and sustain-

able solution for meeting rising housing demands in the city (Heath, 2001). Recent trends

in Copenhagen and Brussels show a rise in population. Above this, the reintroduction of a

residential population stimulates the development of shopping facilities, restaurants and

places of entertainment, which would prove highly desirable for the daytime working popu-

lation as well (Jacobs, 1993). City centre living therefore enhances the viability of all kind

of conversions (Heath, 2001) and thus helps revitalising city centres.

In conclusion one can say that adaptive reuse is a sustainable solution when one

compares it to new constructions, it furthermore can act as a short-term supplier of needed

space and adds a narrative to the city. New constructions on the other side did not loose

their role as supplying perfectly suiting solutions. But does this tailoring add to the lifetime

and value of a building? A first indication would be no:

The best buildings are not those that are cut, like a tailored suit, to fit only

one set of functions, but rather those that are strong enough to retain their

character as they accommodate different functions over time (Campbell &

VanderWarker, 1992: 160-161).

This means that new buildings are planned for shorter periods as business horizons

shrink with the growing global competition (Bon, 1989). Concomitantly, and for the same

reasons, the developments of adaptive reuse projects offer a solution for a short life cycle.

Buildings can be kept, while the functions are more prone to change.

As a result of changing opportunities in the marketplace, even major decisions such as

choosing the ultimate use for a refurbished building may change. Projects almost never

follow a simple logical sequence of decisions from acquisition through design and con-

struction to marketing, as might, sometimes at least, occur in new-build work (Kincaid,

2002). Even if adaptation is a serious alternative to demolition, it does not help to deter-

mine which new use is best suited to a particular building in a particular location at a par-

ticular time. How this research will be approached, is a subject for the next chapter.

! 12

4.Methodology of research

The introduction already revealed that the study will be elaborated via a four-tier

analysis. The basis for this research is lain via a literature study on the conditions and ac-

tors that are active in the process of adaptive reuse. A lot of background information and

documentation has already been collected on several aspects of adaptive reuse. This will

be restructured and outlined to help to understand what and whom is helping or limiting

adaptive reused. Physical characteristics, actors, locational factors, even the information

on the building stock, all have their influence on the process of adaptive reuse. Each of

these factors will be analysed via literature study and will be supported by interviews of

which at least five will be conducted in each city. These interviews are used in chapter five

to check its compliance with the literature and add extra data. The interviewees are se-

lected on the following basis:

1. 1-2 architects that have experience with adaptive reuse and can describe local

problems with planning laws and ideas around reuse.

2. 1 Promoter/ developer of a reuse project that describes the motivations for doing

a reuse. He furthermore can help to understand possible setbacks and promoters.

3. 1 Local city planner that allows the permit to do a functional reuse and knows the

steps to take during an adaptive reuse.

Interview candidates are scouted via a desktop research on news sites of remarkable

projects and via contacts in the real estate sector. After desktop research, contacts are

phoned and an interview is requested.

Table 1: Interviewees in Copenhagen:

Person Function and company Education

Steen Enrico Andersen Director of PLH - architects Architect MAA,$ Intl. As-

soc. AIA

Peter Ebbesen Technical Director of Sjaelsoe- real estate

developers

unknown

Ivar Moltke Architect - Danish Technological Institute Architect

Michaela Bruël and

Karen Probst

City planners for local plans and senior

consultant (Bruël)

Architect

Preservation architect

Poul Nielsen Chief in managing the building permits for

Copenhagen

Architect

! 13

Table 2: Interviewees in Brussels

Person Function and Company Education

Wim Ottevaere Real Estate Consultant (JLL) Geographer

Sophie Coekelberghs Researcher for Review of office property - De-

partment of Land-use planning and Housing

Geographer

Charles MacGregor Ceo of Benelux Property SARL /

Roblain Jessy Commercialisation GOMB

Unknown - telephonic interview

via info-line

Department of urbanism of the city of Brussels

A comparative study is used as it enlarges the scope on common trends, while it low-

ers down the changes of being only a descriptive research. As already mentioned, Brus-

sels and Copenhagen have substantial different real estate markets and differ largely on

their history in spatial planning. History has shown that the historical city centre of Brussels

suffered substantially under modernist planning during the transition to a service economy.

Whole neighbourhoods were cut down to make room for office buildings and highways.

Copenhagen can almost be seen as the antagonism of Brussels. Although the plans were

there, the historical city centre neither has skyscrapers, nor has cut down whole neigh-

bourhoods for office space. Seeing these contrasts, a different evolution in functional re-

use can be expected.

Empirical development will focus on a four tier research: (1) an investigation of the in-

stitutional framework where adaptive reuse has to work in. Strategic plans, land-use plans,

building codes and other can help to determine the institutional framework. Also a desktop

analysis of available subsidies or supporting policies form part of this research. (2) a quan-

titative and geographical analysis of adaptive reuse via the use of data from statistical da-

tabanks, regional development agencies and previous made reports on functional reuse in

the case studies. The localisation of where adaptive reuse is taking place should allow to

make future estimates and understand adaptive reuse in a more thorough way. Therefore

a comparison between the city centre and its surroundings is necessary.

Empirical data collected from statistical databanks pose a threat for the research as

not all data is giving free. Sometimes data is available, but is protected for privacy rea-

sons, and can only be given in a processed way, costing substantial amounts of money

that is not available for this research. When data is not accessible or not satisfying, inter-

views with key protagonists will be used to gather the trends in adaptive reuse.

! 14

As data has to be gathered differently, the empirical studies between Brussels and

Copenhagen will differ largely. For Copenhagen functional reuse can be studied via a own

calculation, but without the possibility to directly investigate the original function. These

trends are therefore underbuilt with interviews. Brussels on the other side has data that

allows an analysis of the destinations and origin of functional reuse for office and industry.

Brussels moreover offers the possibility to do a precise geographical analysis, while in Co-

penhagen these trends have to be based on interviews.

(3) A further outlook on conversions will be given based on a own analysis of previous

trends and existing reports on functional reuse.

(4)The last part of focusses on finding the major actors who are and can influence the

flexibility of buildings. Hereby the interviews with key protagonists and literature on previ-

ous adaptive reuse in the case studies are used to uncover the actors active in functional

reuse. The differences between both cities may need another approach in controlling and

promoting reuse.

To summarise, a literature study, interviews with key protagonists and aggregated

quantitative data are used to support the research. Hereby hard factors, visible in figures

and rules, and the more latent soft factors, i.e. decisions made by the actors, are being re-

searched together. Though different ways of collecting data are used, a comparison be-

tween both case studies still will be possible as general trends will be comparable. The

case studies furthermore show a sufficient amount of particularities, but still act in a com-

mon Western context, allowing a comparative study to be successful.

! 15

5. Conditions and Actors in the Process of Adaptive Reuse

The Barriers and Promoters of Reuse

5.1. Physical limitations of the built fabric

The cause of obsolescence is more generally derived from social and economic

changes in the wider society, than from physical obsolescence. Though, this does not

mean that buildings will allow alteration without any resistance. Obviously there are physi-

cal characteristics that restrain interventions. Adaptive reuse contains a set of natural an-

tagonisms, which must be recognised and dealt with if a reuse is going to be a success. It

is a clash of established and intended hierarchies of use and space. If a minimum amount

of requirements is not met, a reuse cannot be pulled through (Scott, 2008). Gann & Barlow

(1996) identified seven generic characteristics that seem to have an influence on the reus-

ability of the offices to flats:

1. the size, height and depth of a building

2. the type of building structure

3. its internal space, layout and access

4. the building"s services

5. fire safety measures and the means of escape.

6. the building"s envelope and cladding

7. the provision for acoustic separation

A first remark on this list is that physical requirements largely depend on which func-

tion they are meant for, as not every function has the same physical requirements to sell

easy. A study of Kincaid (2002) showed that retail was the least demanding function when

it comes to building characteristics. For retail only building access and location seem to be

of major importance. Office-space on the other side desires the most physical characteris-

tics of all functions. They demand the right cladding material, building lay-out, building ac-

cess, services (like air-conditioning, ventilation, heating system), etc. ... In consequence a

reuse away from offices will not be a surprise. In the following paragraphs, the most impor-

tant physical influences of Gann & Barlow"s (1996) list will be further investigated.

A logical question for a reuse scheme seems to be: does size matter? Alteration

gives the impression of having no limits of scale (Scott, 2008; Cowan, 1963). Cowan

(1963) approached the question from a 2-dimensional point of view. He showed that when

all sizes of spaces used for a generic set of human activities were plotted against the fre-

! 16

quency of occurrence, the peak of the most used surface occurred at only 20 square me-

tres and fell away sharply thereafter as space size increased. In consequence most build-

ings are physically suitable for adaptation to most uses. Though this happens at a certain

economical cost (see 3.2) as function has to follow form, hereby a new function cannot fit

the space tightly.

Size does matter if one sees that larger buildings tend to survive longer than their

smaller counterparts. Larger buildings are ideal conversion candidates as they allow multi-

ple uses (Hassler et al., 2000). The size of buildings converted during the research of

Gann and Barlow (1996), typically ranged between 1000 and 8000 sqm. Also the study

done by BRAT (2007) proved that 66.8% of the buildings had a size between 1000 and

5000 sqm. This certainly does not exclude larger buildings of being reused, as one inter-

viewee (Macgregor) witnessed. 8000 sqm was their minimal surface to be profitable in the

Belgian real estate market for a conversion of offices to student housing. In conclusion one

can say that if it are small, medium or large (>5000 sqm), one rule always goes through:

once a building is altered, the chances are it will be altered again and pursue a modern

way of life up until its next obsolescence.

When moving to a 3 dimensional point of view, the height of the ceiling becomes an

important issue. New living and working standards demand minimal ceiling height of about

2,2-2,5 m (depending on the country). Too low ceilings are very expensive as floors have

to be cut down to reach present day standards, otherwise it cannot be used for housing or

office (interview Ebbesen). Luckily these kind of situations do not happen that often.

Also natural light is one of the requirements in the building regulations, therefore the

depth of the building cannot reach too far. During interviews this was seen of minor influ-

ence by one (interview Anderson), a major cost for the other (interview Ottevaere, Coekel-

berghs). The depth of some old open plan offices is too deep to house dwellings for our

present day standards, though it is feasible to manage (Gann and Barlow, 1996).

The initial #as found" condition of services has little direct effect on project viability as

all building services are usually replaced during adaptive reuse (Kincaid 2002). They wear

out of obsolescence every 7 to 15 years and above this a functional change mostly needs

another lay-out of services. Services therefore are a more neutral characteristic in enabling

reuse.

Structures have to bear down their loads as simple as possible, otherwise design be-

comes significantly more expensive. Also the materials that are used can cause the build-

! 17

ing to be less flexible. If it is easy to cut down walls and alter the lay-out, the building

stands a better chance to be adapted to a new function. Larger spaces and an open lay-

out mean it is more easy to put in modules, which are the basis for design (Dickson et al.,

1999). Steel-framed and horizontal slab concrete structures buildings therefore are the

easiest to convert because services can be run close to their beams, while an open lay-out

is kept (Gann and Barlow, 1996; Kincaid, 2002). This is making the typical offices con-

structed since the 1950#s very flexible buildings. Furthermore the load-bearing brickwork

(Kincaid, 2002), which was used dominantly up until the beginning of the 20th century of-

fers a high rate off flexibility. Only buildings constructed of vertical concrete slaps pose a

threat for further flexibility as they have a very rigid structure (interview Nielsen).

Aesthetics and functions are also highly linked variables (Brand, 1994). Glass cur-

tain walls are linked in our minds to office buildings, while a brick facade is much more ap-

pealing for several functions. Luckily curtain walls are easy to replace as they are a non-

bearing structure, hereby aesthetics do not immediately pose a threat to a reuse project

(Brat, 2007). Looking at the wanted structure and materials it is not a surprise that old

warehouses and old industrial plants, being large and made in brickwork, tend to survive

longer.

To conclude this chapter on physical limitations an idea is formed of which physical

limitations overweigh others. Size does not matter if lower economical profitability is taken

into account. Though, some previous research has shown that some sizes of buildings are

more feasible for reuse than others. This is linked with the presumption that when modules

do not fit in the existing lay-out of the building, a reuse will become very costly as the basic

structure has to be adapted. Services are of no importance as they are generally replaced.

Here beneath one finds an overview of the physical characteristics that have an influence

on the viability of a project. Next chapter investigates which actors can help or limit the

adaptive reuse of buildings.

! 18

Type of physical restrain

Improves reuse Restrains Importance of restrain

Size large open spaces small rooms < 20 sqm From 20 sqm most uses are possibleLarger open spaces enable higher flexibility

Size

free height 2.2, - 2,5 or more suitable for housing and offices

low ceiling If minimum heights are not reached, low chance for conversion

Services Reusable in new function (rare)

Too embedded to re-place

Most of the time have to be replaced. Minor im-portance

Materials 1. Brick structures are easy to alter and aesthetic

2. Steal beams create open spaces and easy to read struc-tures

3. Aesthetics con-nected to particular functions

Vertical concrete slaps offer low possibilities for adaptation.

Material connected to the ability for partition-ing is important.

Facade characteristics off minor importance (replaceable)

Lay-out 1.Easy to read and open structure.2. Structures have to

bare down the load as simple as pos-sible

Supporting walls bear down in a mixed way, making the structure more complicated

The more easy the lay-out the cheaper the re-use.When modules cannot fit in, very low chance for conversion to hous-ing or office.

Table 3: Summary of physical restrains (Source: own)

! 19

5.2. From Owners till Financiers of Adaptive Reuse

Property owners do not always see the opportunities that are offered by functional

reuse. In London, many property owners contributed to the problem of vacant space by

being reluctant to accept that the previously higher rent values of their present function will

not return. Such inertia by site owners was a significant constraint on the conversion

process and temporarily masked further decreases in property values (Heath, 2001). In

most of these cases, owners are often unaware of the potential to free up space and the

possibility of viable conversion to a residential use (Drivers et al, 2003a; Oxley, 2004)).

Other owners might maintain empty buildings as speculation for rising density and do not

want to alter the present building, as it is waiting for destruction.

Also multiple ownership of one building can considerably stop a functional reuse as all

owners have to agree if considerable works are done on the whole building (interview

Ebbesen).

The users are the ones where the buildings are living for and even then, they are not

independent in choosing what they want to do with it. First of all, information can be miss-

ing, secondly rental-users have to legitimate their project to their landlord, while owner-

occupied users #only" have to face the state. The ideal of a free user is not possible. State

control can and has to restrict particular changes to guarantee public safety. When all

these conditions are met, a user still has the challenge to leverage the funds to support the

project.

It is the client that orders to do a work of art (the building) according to his wishes, but

it is the architect that holds the pencil. The architects have to study the practicability and

reachability of a reuse project. When not having the right imagination or working in the

wrong paradigm, he might call the project of. Some research and interviews (interview

Moltke) have proven that this is unfortunately the case:

“The actual value systems and the underlying theoretical assumptions both of

the modern movement and of the post-modern theories, offer little support.

They are all basically oriented towards the design of new buildings and are

not appropriate to handle the historic complexity of the built environment”

(Kohler and Hassler, 2002 :234).

! 20

Educating the architects to manage reuse of buildings therefore is an important factor

in improving the reuse of buildings. Architecture moreover is a fashion where architects

play a role in setting the trends. PLH architects (interview Anderson) themselves chose an

old warehouse as their headquarters. By this, they make a statement that adaptive reuse

is feasible. Trend-setters are very important in delivering the knowledge to the main public.

They can lead to the tipping point where-after reuse becomes an overall accepted proce-

dure (Gladwell, 2002). Ottevaere (interview) beliefs that reuse out of warehouses are typi-

cally for architects and publicity offices. He does not see other companies changing to this

kind of offices. Though, industrial lofts, ones the scene of artists, have reached the com-

mon image of being high-end housing and is certainly carrying a positive connotation.

Even from the cradle architects can help buildings continue to survive. Even so, the next

actor is much more powerful and can demise all actions undertaken by previous actors.

The Finance, Insurance an Real Estate (FIRE) industries play a major role in form-

ing and controlling the urban landscape. They use rules that not always comply with what

is best for society or their tenants. FIRE-sector, such as banks, insurance companies,

pension funds and development companies, turn buildings into cash. They make the built

environment take integral part of the capitalist system. With the growing strength and activ-

ity of the (international) FIRE-companies, the importance of the exchange value has risen

considerably in the past decades (Kivell, 1993). A consequence of this is that buildings

have to sell high and easily. As Moltke (interview) puts it: “Developers think in square me-

ters and what they can earn with it. For investors buildings become an abstraction only

visible in figures.” For the real estate sector the value of property is fundamentally tied to

its highest and best use (Heslop, 2006). Therefore only when a rent or value-gap emerges

between two property sectors, a conversion will happen (Barlow and Gann, 1993).

One of the other obstacles for conversions is the specialisation of the real estate mar-

ket. Developers, investors and owners of office buildings have little knowledge of other

branches of the real estate market as they most of the time stay in their branch (Remøy &

van der Voordt, 2007). Developers and investors do expand into new markets and even

switch sectors, but do it with vigilance and only when they are forced to or the costs of

staying in a stagnant/declining sector or geographical market greatly outweigh the costs of

the shift, including the costs of beginning at the bottom of a new learning curve (Beaure-

gard, 2005).

! 21

If the acquisition cost together with the costs of the needed changes to bring the prop-

erty to today's standards stays below the replacement cost, the project for investors is po-

tentially viable. But that's on paper. The high rate of uncertainty can add up seriously to the

final budget (interviews Ebbesen and Anderson). Therefore it is important to take a good

look before you leap (Heslop, 2006).

A research of adaptive reuse showed that 41 per cent of respondents find it critical that

decisions for reuse or new construction should be based on finding the option that leads to

the most effective use (read: brings in the most money) of land such as increased density

(Bullen, 2007): “We are not doing functional reuse out of sharity; we are doing reuse to do

business (Interview Ebbensen).”

In the UK investors in adaptive reuse are typically relatively small specialist develop-

ers, or foreign financial bodies (Kincaid, 2002). Real estate companies are reluctant to use

existing industrial buildings often due to a lack of rapid availability and fear of complica-

tions (building codes, risks of pollution, hidden costs, etc.) (Kohler & hassler 2002). The

longer the procedures, the more profit has to be made on the building to be competitive

with other investments. The fear for the hidden is nicely described in the case of the con-

version of an old soya production facility in Islands Brygge in Copenhagen:

“First of all the municipality wanted to keep the building as it had some his-

torical value. But the value of the building, like most of the reuses, was diffi-

cult to project. In this situation (of an old soya plant) it was very deteriorated.

A lot of extra costs came in. Our experience is that when we finish the adap-

tation and renovation of a building, the value is not as high as we first thought

it would be. For us, maybe it would be the same price to start all over again

(interview Ebbensen).”

In consequence, functional reuse is not systematically developed. Functional reuses

are approached in a #project by project" basis with experience remaining private to the indi-

vidual firms involved. In these circumstances, the development of #best practice" proce-

dures is limited, with few opportunities to establish guidance for the avoidance of project

failures and lower down the fear of developers (Kincaid, 2002).

Looking at the real estate"s sector way of thinking one clear lesson can be taken: the

viability of converting of an existing building is connected to the profit and certainties at-

! 22

tached to such a project. As many uncertainties can be connected to it, deciding to do a

functional reuse becomes a complex issue where information plays a major role.

5.3. Information as threshold

An important barrier that showed up on the radar of most actors is that there is a lack

of information on the possibilities of adaptive reuse. They moreover fear the unknown as-

pects of a reuse project. Even before buildings can be fully (re)used, there is a problem of

identification. The present lack of data on existing building stock makes an analysis for fur-

ther possibilities difficult. Especially (partly) vacant buildings are difficult to identify.

Myers and Wyatt (2004) studied which information should be made accessible to

make it more easy for developers to query suitable projects and heighten up the chance

for buildings to be reused: the owner(s), the previous uses, the size of the vacant property,

the level and accessibility of service provisions, the location, the value, the age and length

of vacancy.

Most of the time this type of information is not readily available but does exist. Gov-

ernment systems seem to exacerbate the problem, as the information is collected in parts

by their agents but at no point is it combined to create a complete picture (Kohler and

Hassler, 2002; Myers and Wyatt, 2003). It is furthermore difficult to extrapolate sensible

information from sparse data. For example, it might be useful to quote vacant buildings as

a proportion total building stock in terms of area, value or the number of units. Hereby cre-

ating an awareness of the problem that might occur in certain areas.

A good framework of rules and information can be an invitation to be interactive. This

can lead to an exchange of ideas and methods where actors can become a catalyst for

innovation. The fact that the building of a house extension increases the probability of an-

other house extension being built soon after in the immediate vicinity reflects the operation

of a neighbour effect in owner-occupied houses (Whitehand, 2001). A similar effect may

arise with adaptive reuse. The right information is very important to promote and seek op-

portunities for reuse, though interviews (MacGregor, Ebbesen)have proven that experi-

ence and networks can replace this source when absent: “Everybody is bringing you build-

ings if they know you are buying something (interview MacGregor).”

! 23

5.4. Governmental Influence

The urban fabric can be modified, streets can be broadened, new buildings can be

erected, buildings can be altered, all of this is done under the watchful eye of the govern-

ment. Even when adaptive reuse is not the most preferred way to be followed by the

owner, the government can protect and preserve buildings (Kincaid, 2002). The govern-

ment has the responsibility to find a compromise between the future and the past. As even

in adaptive reuse protection can limit the future of a building. Finding this ballance was

seen as one of the biggest challenges for the interviewees.

Next to protection, national and local tax policies, subsidies, standards and planning

control, are important factors to plan, promote or prohibit particular changes (Bon &

Hutchinson, 2000; Oxley, 2004). These policies can be area (district) and/or actor specific

(Oxley, 2004; Woods, 2007). Such policies present a paradox. Laws control the basics of a

construction before it even can start: Is the zoning right for the intended use? Is the struc-

ture sound and does it meet the building code? Is the building protected and if yes, to what

degree?

All of these instruments are controlled via a rigid bureaucracy, which streamlines the

processing of spatial policies. This system works well as long as the cases fit the regula-

tions or standards. Adaptive reuse does not always fit the system as buildings are being

used for other purposes than they were designed for. When standards and land-use are

linked to one function, adaptive reuse becomes remarkably more difficult. This means that

when the function of a building changes, the minimal fire escape requirements can change

with them, as more people can be in the building, people may stay overnight or the acces-

sibility of fire escape decreases with the implementation of more walls (Gann and Barlow,

1996). This kind off bureaucracy has a significant impact across all types of building pre-

scriptions.

As standards evolve, buildings also have to adapt to new general standards mostly

devised for new constructions. As rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings

has increased, some attempts have been made to devise separate code provisions for

certain classes of existing buildings, enabling them to evade minimal requirements primar-

ily aimed at new constructions.

In terms of parking, the government can advise local planning authorities to take a

flexible approach to residential car parking in town centres and to specify lower parking

standards for conversions of housing or other buildings, such as for former office buildings

! 24

(Department of the Environment, 1996; Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions, 2000). A relaxation of standards in parking spaces is acceptable for functional

reuse in the city centre because: firstly, the proximity of conversions to public transport and

employment sources; and secondly, it is often very expensive or physically impossible to

provide parking spaces as part of the conversion (Heath, 2001). Other relaxations of stan-

dards might also be possible to improve adaptive reuse, but need a thorough investigation.

In conclusion, governmental policies from all kinds of aspects can play a significant

role in helping to ensure a solution for obsolete buildings and their blighting effects (Heath,

2001). Cases like adaptive reuse, that do not fit in the regular bureaucratic framework

need other ways of being dealt with. More information on how these policies work and look

like in practice will be explained during the discussion of the case studies of Brussels and

Copenhagen.

Table 4: Conclusion on the influence of actors and state

Actor Improves reuse Restrains

Users - Owners Aware of possibilities of reuse SpeculationLow ProfitabilityNo allowance from land-lord, other ownersNo awareness

Architects Information on possibilities of reuse availableCreate possibilities for future adapta-tions from the cradleTrendsetter for other users

No knowledge on reuse.Cannot go against the con-tractor

FIRE - sector Profitability of projectLow incertainties

Low profitabilityHigh incertainties

State: Spatial planning

Allow a mix of uses Monofunctional Planning

State: Building stan-dards

Separated standards for reused build-ings.No adjustment needed to new stan-dards

Reused Buildings have to be adjusted to meet new standards of insulation, height, fire-escape, ...

State: Protection

Low protection = higher flexibility Few elements of a building can be altered

! 25

5.5. Locational factors

Locational factors are very influential for the possibilities of reusing a building. When

developers selected the most preferred characteristic of a reusable building, they foremost

look at the location (61% of all cases) and transport access (Kincaid, 2002:40). The floor

plan size (54%) and the floor to ceiling height (48%) were ranked second and third.

Location is therefore at least as important as the physical characteristics of a building.

An idea much shared by Macgregor (interview):

!From our perspective it is location that is important and this drives us more

than anything else. We are looking for buildable land or buildings to reuse, as

we do not want to be stuck with only new building sites. A feasibility study will

show what is most profitable.”

Locational characteristics like access to public transport and quality of local amenities

determine the saleability of a property after conversion (Kincaid, 2002). As local amenities,

like public transportation and services, are best served in city centres, local reuse should

score good in the city centre.

Some areas are preferred over others, and this preference is under constant change.

Interesting areas of 20 years ago, might now offer a bad location as characteristics and/or

preferences of the users have changed. Developers therefore always check if locational

factors are appropriate enough and investigate if traffic patterns and the demographic

composition of the immediate trade area can support the intended use.

Another factor that can have a negative impact is the image of the area created by a

poor spatial and visual quality. Agglomeration factors, such as other similar firms moving

out/in, lack of facilities and a concentration of ageing premises, are also important in creat-

ing a negative or positive image (Remøy & van der Voordt, 2007).

Without a good location that attracts other functions, a reuse will not be pulled through.

Location therefore is one of the first characteristics that enables a reuse.

5.6. Conclusions on Chapter 5

The research on conditions and actors of adaptive reuse have shown that there are

five main interlocking characteristics that all have their influence on the process of reuse.:

(1) physical characteristics like the size of the rooms (>20 sqm), the height of the ceiling

! 26

>2,5m, the materials where it is made of (no vertical concrete slaps) and the kind of lay-out

(open and easy to implement modules) can help an adaptive reuse project forwards.

Above this, one cannot forget that depending on the function, buildings will need more or

less characteristics. Hereby office is the most demanding function, while retail is the least

demanding. Though for retail a good location is of uppermost importance.

(2) Actors in the process of adaptive reuse also play an important role. First of all the

owners and users suffer from a lack on information on the possibilities of functional reuse.

They are furthermore limited by the knowledge and aim of their architects, together with

the occupancy structure of the building. The FIRE-sector is a profit driven sector and will

not do adaptive reuse without clear profitability. It moreover is a cautious sector, for this

reason (3) information on reuse and its possibilities is a major threshold for all actors.

(4) The government also plays an important role in (dis)allowing functional reuse. By

having a rigid bureaucracy and not giving an exception to the existing built fabric for meet-

ing new building standards can endanger an adaptive reuse. Spatial planning and protec-

tion furthermore play an important role in guiding the process of reuse as it are exclusion-

ary measures that can have a positive or negative influence. When a building is protected,

it furthermore stands a good chance of being reused.

(5) In the upcoming empirical analysis location cannot be forgotten, as it is foremost

the location that is important for allowing a project to be successful (interview Anderson,

Ebbesen, Macgregor). During further analysis it is clear that physical characteristics, prof-

itability, information on the building stock, location and governmental influence and control

have to be taken into account.

! 27

6. Reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen: the Case Studies

6.1. The legal framework for Adaptive Reuse

The theoretical capacity of adaptive reuse depends largely on how the spatial planning

policies are restricting and directing reconversion. This chapter examines the particular

and common spatial policies for adaptive reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen.

6.1.1. Spatial planning control for Brussels and Copenhagen

Land use planning as one knows it today, is only a recent phenomenon. Up until the

mid of the 1990"s, when the regions in Belgium implemented their own land-use plans,

spatial planning was highly influenced by private actors, where large scale projects altered

the landscape of Brussels (Dessouroux, 2010). Cataclysmic capital destroyed old man-

sions, pushed out the residents and made a mono-functional central business district

stretching from Brussels" northern district over the eastern part of the central city (the pen-

tagon) to the European/Leopold district. On this axis large office buildings of more than

10.000 sqm dominate the urban landscape. The centre of Copenhagen did not undergo

this much ruination, although there were similar plans for tearing down neighbourhoods to

make way for highways and modern buildings (Reeh, 2002). Here public opinion was more

successful in agitating against these measures.

The organisation of spatial planning in both cities differs significantly. The Capital re-

gion of Brussels has full control over its strategic and land-use plans, hereby they only

have two levels of control: the regional and the municipal level. Though the policies of spa-

tial planning are more dispersed as one would think first: there are three ministers, (minis-

ter of Spatial Planning, secretary of state in Urbanism and a minister of Housing) and at

least 19 more aldermen dealing with aspects of conversion. This is certainly affecting the

possibility to create common reuse policies.

Copenhagen also is responsible for spatial planning, but has two entities above it that

control spatial planning: the region and the national level. On the other side, only one min-

ister is responsible for spatial policies, which enables the creation of policies specifically

aimed at adaptive reuse(interview Probst and Brüell).

As the hinterland of Brussels also has independent spatial planning policies, there is a

fierce competition in spatial planning. Brussels, Wallonia and Flanders all try to attract

companies and inhabitants. Especially in the office sector, Flanders (Diegem, around the

! 28

airport) and North of Walloon Brabant (Waterloo) are offering cheap locations where Brus-

sels cannot compete on the price. Furthermore large companies can challenge all three

regions to press through projects. A similar competition is recently visible since the open-

ing of the Øresund (toll)bridge, which connects Copenhagen with Malmö. Copenhagen, on

the other side is still more a primate city with less direct competition as it has more control

over its surroundings. It has the opportunity to dominate the planning decisions over its

surroundings (except for Malmö) thanks to the regional and national spatial planning lev-

els, where Copenhagen has an important saying.

To synthesise: Brussels and Copenhagen draw on a contrasting planning history and

furthermore have a different planning control that will influence further analysis of func-

tional reuse.

6.1.2. Rules for Construction Enabling or Disabling Reuse

Does a change of function need a building permit? is a crucial question when it comes

to facing bureaucracy or not. In Brussels a building permit has to be issued for all changes

of uses that are seen as significant. Conversions between offices, workshops, retail and

housing are seen as significant (tel interview). Copenhagen has a less time consuming

approach depending on the size of the project: spatial planners only require a building no-

tice1 for conversions of areas not larger than 150 sqm2. These changes should not entail a

significant change of use defined as: “a use for another purpose that involves significantly

higher energy consumption. Conversion of an attic or stock area to housing therefore is a

significant change of use (7.3.1(1))- Danish Building regulations)”. All other conversion not

dealing with these preconditions need a building permit. Copenhagen hereby has an ad-

vantage over Brussels as small offices can be converted to housing without going through

the whole procedure of building permits.

Bringing buildings up to modern standards is seen as the biggest challenge for during

the process of reuse (interviews Moltke, Andersen, Ebbensen). Buildings that are undergo-

ing a refurbishment furthermore have to be in accordance with the building prescriptions

fitting their new function. Copenhagen makes no differentiation by function or by kind of

! 29

1 = registration at the BBR (Bygnings- og Boligregistret - the Building and Housing Register of Denmark)

2 This exception may only entail a conversion within one business or residential unit. Es-caping a building permit by multiple registration of units in one building is not possible.

construction (new built or refurbishment): all buildings heated up to 15°C and over have to

comply to the same standards. Brussels on the other side did create a distinction; depend-

ing on the scale of the refurbishment and the type of the building, other energy standards

are applied (Gewestelijke Stedenbouwkundige Verordeningen, 2006). Hereby housing has

the highest standards. When an office in Brussels is being converted into housing, it has to

meet higher standards than during an ordinary refurbishment, hereby creating an extra

threshold that is not present in Copenhagen.

When new standards cannot be met because of problems inherent to the structure,

Copenhagen has the possibility to fight the new standards. A municipal council then has to

decide if a exemption can be made. Next to the challenge of meeting new energy stan-

dards, conforming with housing/workplace requirements is seen as a substantial hurdle to

be taken (interviews Ebbensen, MacGregor). Brussels and Copenhagen both have mini-

mal requirements for heights and sizes of rooms. Recent years standards have gone up.

Surfaces during conversion might not meet minimal requirements, hereby extra walls have

to be cut down. This can create oversized rooms, which cannot be capitalised as apart-

ments are mostly sold according to the amount of rooms they have (Brat, 2007). If this is

the case in Brussels, one can fight these minimal room standards via a commission (Be-

woonbaarheidsnormen voor woningen, 2006).

Except for buildings worthy of preservation, no other exceptions were found for reusing

a building. Protected buildings" refurbishment and changes of uses have to be negotiated

with a particular department that determines what is possible.

With the aim of preserving a listed building in Brussels, a conversion to housing,

production-facilities, retail, offices or hotels is possible if it also is in accordance with the

Royal commission for Monuments and Landscapes. In Denmark the possibilities are nego-

tiated between the Heritage Agency of Denmark and the Spatial Planning authorities,

where the Heritage Agency of Denmark has the final saying (Interview Probst & Bruël).

This means that functional reuse of protected buildings is not decided by the spatial plan-

ning departments, but by their respective heritage agencies. Interview showed that this is

creating an extra threshold as spatial planning still has to give its approval on the decision

of the heritage agencies:

“The more departments you have to negotiate with the more difficult it be-

comes, as not all have the same requests and sometimes give contradictory

advises (interview MacGregor).”

! 30

To sum up the trends for the rules enabling or disabling conversions, one sees that

several exemptions can be made for conversion projects, making it more easy to bend the

existing framework to present day needs. The downside of this is that one has to convince

the Department of Urbanism or face politics to get the exemptions, which is not always the

case as one of the interviews proved.

6.1.3. Taxes and subsidies for promoting reuse

Governments also have other instruments to influence the spatial structures of cities.

As the municipality of Brussels has a long-time problem with vacant buildings, they imple-

mented a tax on vacant property to stop dilapidation of the built fabric. Owners in this way

are forced to rethink the way their property is managed and so might open up the opportu-

nity for starting a reuse. Buildings and plots that are neglected or unused, like empty floors

above retail, all of them are taxed by this system. Though, it would not be Brussels if 67%

of the cases that had to pay this tax objected to pay it.

Brussels not only uses the stick to support the renovation of buildings, they also use

the carrot: via regional subsidies houses can be renovated, even when a building comes

from another use and is not in conflict with the land-use plan. If the building is older than

30 years, the owner has right on a subsidy of up to 35.000 % for a dwelling with 2

bedrooms.3 Hereby, if this subsidy is well known at the public, Brussels can help the con-

version to housing considerably. It becomes even more interesting as a large warehouse

can be bought in group and subsidies are given per housing unit. Percentages refunded

depend on income and owner structure 4 after construction(www.renovatiepremies.be).

Brussels furthermore has zones of neighbourhood contract and zones to promote housing

(stated as RVOHR on figure 1) where extra subsidies (percent wise) are given and less

requirements are asked. The historical city centre of Brussels can certainly profit of these

subsidies as large areas are coloured by one of both kind of promotion zones (see figure

! 31

3 This maximum subsidy is raised with 5.000 % per bedroom starting from the third bed-room.

4 Only when the owner is going to be domiciled on the location for minimal 5 years, he will be eligible for funding. Also companies can ask for subsidies, but then they are obliged to rent the apartments to social housing offices of Brussel for at least 9 years. Social renting is also possible when you are a natural person that does not want to live there, but do want to do a refurbishment (for example a space above a shop).

1). Copenhagen only has subsidies to renovate housing that already are housing, hereby

missing the opportunity to support conversion to housing.

Another advantage of Brussels is that it offers a lower VAT (Value Added Tax) off only

6% for refurbishment5 against 21% VAT6 for new constructions. This reduction of 15% in

costs can make a huge difference for large projects. In interviews this was mentioned as

the largest advantage of an adaptive reuse project over a new construction. In Copenha-

gen no difference is made between different kinds of constructions. VAT for conversions

therefore is 25%, making it 18% more expensive than in Belgium to do reuse.

Next to VAT also registration costs are seen as a threshold for changing ownership.

Here Brussels scores the worst as it has one of the highest registration costs for property

in Europe, reaching 12,5%. Though, this level can be lowered down when the owner is go-

ing to live in the property, it is still much higher than in Copenhagen where registration cost

are 309,89 EURO (2306 DKK) + 0.6% - 1.5% of transaction fee.

Figure 1: Pentagon of Brussels with brown as region to promote housing function, blue is zone with neighbourhood contract. (www.prime-renovation.irisnet.be/)

! 32

5 This measure is coming to an end this year, but might be extended.

6 Temporarily during crisis time this VAT level has been lowered down to 6% for new con-structions for the first 50.000 Euro"s

A last remarkable policy measure for promoting conversion came from the secretary of

state for Urbanism who is funding the Bruocsella price. The aim of this price is to hand in a

renovation project for a non listed-buildings that will improve the quality of life in a neigh-

bourhood. They explicitly mention that conversion projects take part in the Bruocsella

Price. The winning project gets 25.000 euro.

To conclude the subsidies for and taxes on reuse one sees that Brussels has much

more subsidies to support reuse. The VAT tax advantage for refurbishment is really creat-

ing opportunities for reuse to be chosen above a new construction. Transaction cost on the

other side slow down turnover time for buildings in Brussels, as buying and selling build-

ings is much more expensive than in Copenhagen. Hereby both have their advantages

and downsides, with Brussels is creating the most opportunities specifically for reuse.

6.1.4. Procedure time - the project killer

If a change of use is in accordance with the land-use plan and building prescription, a

building permit can be issued. The period wherein a project can be managed can mean

the death or life off an adaptive reuse project as developers want see let their capital circu-

late (Brat, 2007). Above this chapter 5 has shown that sometimes only a limited window of

opportunity enables projects. Interviews in both cities indicated that there is no difference

between the term necessary for a building permit of a new construction or an adaptive re-

use when land-use allowed a change of use7. When land-use plans do not fit the aimed

use, terms of one year or more are typical to change the land-use to the appropriate use.

Though, a success in changing a function is not always guaranteed. Changes in land-use

plans have to undergo a public inquiry and face politics. In Brussels these take up at least

a 120 days. Non compliance of land-use plans therefore can considerable extent the time

a project takes.

Before moving to the land use plans, Table 5 will give an overview of the spatial plan-

ning policies excluding the land-use plans.

! 33

7 Copenhagen +- 0,5 year and Brussels 75 - 120 days

Table 5: Conclusion of Spatial Planning control in Brussels and Copenhagen

Brussels Copenhagen Most advan-taged city for conversions

Historical Context of reuse

Mixed downtown with high rise sky-scrapers of more than 10.000 sqm and historical buildings.

Mixed downtown of of-fices and housing, well preserved and no sky-scrapers in the historical districts

Copenhagen(see 6.2 and 6.3 why).

Control over Spatial planning

Full control for the re-gion, but politically dispersed

High control, more con-centrated into one minis-try

Copenhagen can be most decisive

Competition with surrounding regions

High competition = dispersed investments all over the functional urban region

More control over hinter-land = possibility for con-centrated development

Copenhagen

Building Permit needed for Func-tional reuse

Always Not <150 sqm* Smaller con-versions in Copenhagen

Energy standards Several standards One standard for heated buildings (> 15 °C)

Copenhagen

Exceptions for con-version

For size of rooms/lay-out: yesFor energy standards: not found

Exceptions are possible under negotiation and approval of a special commission

Copenhagen

Protection For protected buildings a national heritage board decides which functions are possible.For protected buildings a national heritage board decides which functions are possible.

Subsidies for con-versions

yes no Brussels

VAT for conversion 6% 25% Brussels

Registration costs 12,5% 309,89% + 0.6% - 1.5% Copenhagen

Building permit time 75 days +- 6 months Brussels

Altering Land-use plans

120 days (minimal) +- 1 year (average) Brussels

* Only when there is no significant change in energy use

! 34

6.1.5. Strategic and Land-use Plans

The Awareness and Possibilities for Reuse

Land-use and strategic plans are crucial in allowing a building to be altered. First of all

land-use plans are made to exclude certain uses. This means they are elaborated with

predefined aims. In Brussels these aims, #the 12 priorities of Brussels", are structured in

the Regional Development Plan (www.gewop.irisnet.be/), while Copenhagen both strategic

and land-use plans are mentioned in the 4-year municipal plans8 (Københavns kommune-

plan, 2009). Both strategic plans have several parallels: they see the supply of qualitative

housing as a first priority. This is not a surprise, as the enforcement of housing has to be

seen in the light of the search for a taxable base to support the city. Better qualitative

housing enforces the attractiveness of living in the city. The first strategic priority of Brus-

sels specifically mentions the option of giving new destinations to empty buildings (section

1.2.1). To support this, an inventory off all vacant buildings and several subsidies are

elaborated. The new municipal plan of Copenhagen is also aware of the options of adap-

tive reuse in supplying the needs of particular functions: it foresees the growth in youth or

college housing via the conversion of offices (together with new construction).

Also the alteration of destination of certain districts is managed in strategic plans. Co-

penhagen already has drawn up several zones in the municipal plan where major destina-

tion alterations may take place. These areas are mainly areas with exclusionary zoning

with only one function, consisting of old industrial or harbour areas like the Carlsberg

brewery site, the Northern harbour. These sites first have to be abandoned by its original

uses before new functions like housing, offices and retail can be allowed via a land-use

plan. The crisis has postponed the start of developing these areas as otherwise it will be a

competition for development in other areas of the city where already development has

started. These large scale alterations plans indicate that the government wants to control

change of uses to a large extent. Though, as will come out in the next part about the land-

! 35

8 While the Danish framework of municipal plans, consists of guidelines for housing den-sity or building density, maximum height (defined as combined number of floors in residen-tial areas (B) and services-(C) areas), the useable area, size and parking coverage, in Brussels the structural building limitations are governed via the regional building prescrip-tions where also the insulation standards, accessibility and all other building standards governed by the region are controlled. Land-use plans in Brussels only govern exceptions in prescription.

use kinds, the city centre allows spontaneous changes to happen without the need for lo-

cal plans.

Similar to Copenhagen, Brussels has strategic areas open for conversion: the areas of

regional importance. Their future uses are drawn up in special regional land-use plans.

These areas are characterised by their special aims and allowances for the construction of

office space. These areas can only be used when no other solution within the Brussels

capital region can be found for a company9.

A last mentioning in the Brussels strategic plan about the conversion of buildings is in

the forth priority, which is built around the need for redevelopment of the central urban ar-

eas. To support this, particular zones, like the Western part of the city centre of Brussels is

marked as an area to enforce the development and renovation of housing. As seen during

point 6.1.3 these areas receive extra subsidies, which can also be used for conversions to

housing.

Also the coalition agreement of the new government of Brussels 2009 mentions the

need for conversion of old offices to housing. An interview with the ministry of housing and

urbanism showed that the politics are highly supportive to this kind of projects, but does

not mention how they will elaborate policies for it.

As seen in chapter 5 extra flexibility is necessary to deal with certain reuse projects. In

Copenhagen and Brussels special local plans can be used for these occasions, which fur-

ther specify superior plans. In Brussels exceptions to superior plans are possible via a ne-

gotiation commission, together with a public inquiry and advise of the Regional Govern-

ment of Brussels. In Copenhagen local plans have to be drawn for every major construc-

tion or demolition that drastically alters the environment10 and/or are dealing with a sensi-

tive environment. Hereby the local plans of Copenhagen and the special destination plans

of Brussels have special powers that can enable reuse projects previously impossible.

Spatial planners of Copenhagen explained that they use local plans to alter function of an

area faster than the 4 years time laps wherein a municipal plan is renewed, though it takes

a lot more time than a normal building permit. An interview about the special Destination

! 36

9 Other areas of regional importance like the North neighbourhood, the neighbourhood around the south station and the administrative Leopold district first have to realise at least 530.000 sqm of new office space before construction can start in the postponed areas.

10For Copenhagen this means the creation of larger parcels and major civil engineering works, which means every project of more than 2000 sqm or 40 dwellings. Plans for other plans are also possible

Plans and Local Plans made clear that if politicians can be influenced to do a change, a lot

can happen. But what is possible via the ordinary land-use plans? Following chapter will

discuss how the 8 land-use kinds of Copenhagen and the 20 land-use kinds of Brussels

are influencing the capacity to do a reuse. In table 6 a comparison is made, putting similar

land-use kinds next to each other. On first sight the land-use classes look pretty similar,

but their flexibility differs highly.

Kind of land-uses in Copenhagen

Kind of land usesBrussels

Residential areas (B) Areas with Residential character -Typical residential areas

Areas for housing and services (C) (Strongly) Mixed-use areas

Areas for services (S) Areas for administration

Fields of industry (J)

Areas of technical equipment (T)

Areas of mixed occupations (E)

Areas for port uses (H)

Areas of Urban industryArea for port and logistics

Areas for public institutions

and recreational areas (0)

Green areas (8 different classes)- but no public institutionsAreas collective importance or public services

Areas of regional importanceAreas of regional importance with delayed con-structionReserve areasRailway areas

Before starting the land-use kinds, it is important to mention that both land-use plans

have delimited the historical city as preservation area, hereby the majority of the inner City

of Copenhagen (Indre By) and some areas in Christianshavn are exempted from some

standardised guidelines like the building density and functional mix. In Brussels this pres-

ervation area is only protecting the existing state of the environment by maintaining the

building profiles or the view of the facades which are visible to the public. Buildings there-

Table 6: Links between the kind of Landuses in Brussels and Copenhagen (own)

! 37

fore cannot be easily destroyed and have a higher chance of being reused. Though a

higher flexibility on the uses like in Copenhagen is not mentioned.

The spatial planners of Copenhagen explicitly say that the inner city needs these ex-

ceptions for conservation reasons, otherwise half of the inner city would not comply the

standards for densities and functional mixes. In Brussels the density is not defined on a

general basis, but is place specific and depends on the height and depth of the surround-

ing buildings, which it may not surpass by a certain amount. Buildings that tower over the

surrounding buildings should normally be lowered down when a destruction and new con-

struction is done. As this is a loss in economical surface, landlords will chose to preserve

the present building, improving the chances for being functionally reused.

6.1.5.1. Possibilities created by Land-Use Plans - Retail

Retail is the most flexible function as it has the lowest requirements and is most of the

time mixed with other functions like office or housing. Because of this mixed character, re-

tail cannot be put in an independent land-use colouring. In Brussels every land-use kind

has special regulations for retail, while Copenhagen is managing its retail via an initial

framework.

Copenhagen is highly controlling and limiting the possibilities for retailing via the mu-

nicipality plan. Planning law provisions control which kind of shops are possible, the sur-

faces they can have and on which particular locations they can be placed. According to the

municipal plan, retail shops should be located in the defined shopping areas of Copenha-

gen"s districts. In these districts the retail function is protected from reuse to other func-

tions other than retail and public-oriented functions. Brussels also has predefined shopping

areas where the function of shops has priority, but is less restrictive outside these shop-

ping areas when it comes to allowed surfaces and kind of shops. Where in Copenhagen

non-grocery shops are not allowed to grow larger than 100 sqm outside a designated

shopping area 11 , Brussels already has 150 sqm at the most restrictive land-use kind12.

! 38

11 Small community food shops outside the designated central shopping areas cannot ex-ceed 500 sqm, even 200 sqm for residential areas.

12 Area of residential character.

Furthermore Brussels allows shops to make extensions13 on the site if a public inquiry is

done and following rules are followed:

1. that the enlargement is underwritten with social and economical motives.

2. that the local situation allow an enlargement and does not suppress the major func-

tion of the area

3. that the measures and works were done under special rules of publication14.

Designated shopping areas in Brussels and Copenhagen15 are mostly the historical

city centres and its transportation access leading out of the city (see figure 2). These

shopping streets grew organically via conversion of ground-flours and creation of new

buildings, because it are highly visible and busy locations (interview Moltke). This trend is

still continuing. These shopping area"s are now embedded in spatial planning and is a nice

example of how spatial planning reacts on spontaneous and older trends. The high protec-

tion of Copenhagen"s retail has to be seen in the light to promote certain shopping area"s

and stop the sprouting up of shops in unwanted location, thus crippling the possibilities for

new shopping areas to start. Spatial planners do want to give opportunities to good initia-

tives, but then a local plan has to be made to allow larger shops outside the pre-

designated areas (interview Bruël and Probst), hereby slowing down a project by almost

one year. A positive point for the urban flexibility of Copenhagen is that the city centre of

Copenhagen is almost fully recognised as a shopping area and is allowing a lot of shops to

start up and extent: Copenhagen"s municipal plan (strategic plan) foresees a rise of 40,000

m& in retail for the centre in the coming 4 years. As a large part of the inner city is histori-

cally protected, functional reuse can play a major role in meeting this rise.

! 39

13 In Brussels, the maximum surface is restricted to 200 sqm for retail and 500 sqm for wholesale in Mixed-use areas, but is quite flexible in allowing extensions to 1.000 and 1.500 sqm.

14 Special rules of publication consists of a public inquiry and a commission. The public in-quiry serves to inform the population and ask for there comments. After a public inquiry, the commission debates the project and brings out an advise, based on the comments of the surrounding inhabitants on the project. The municipality can then follow the advise or motivate the deviation when a building permit is issued or not.

15 Examples are Østerbrogade for Østerbro, Norebrogade for Norebro, Vesterbrogade for Vesterbro and Amagerbro for Amagerbrogade.

Figure 2: Protected Shopping districts in Copenhagen (Red: city centers, orange: neighbourhood centers, green: local centers)

! 40

6.1.5.2. Possibilities created by Land-use Plans - Housing

Housing is the most flexible function to change to in both Copenhagen and Brussels. It

is well protected from conversion in the typical residential land-use types, while in other

land-use kinds it can still take up a considerable amount. In Brussels there neither is a

maximum allowed housing in mix-use land-use nor in the services land-use. This means

that housing theoretically can take over these zones.

In Copenhagen on the other side one sees that housing only can take up to 75% 16 in

the mix-use land-use kind (C). Also the land-use for Services (S) in Copenhagen has a re-

striction for housing. Normally 15% of the floor area can be used for housing, though cen-

tral Copenhagen and Christianshavn have an exception and housing may rise up to 50%.

The reason why Brussels is much more flexible with housing in a service area is be-

cause the land-use plan is made during a time that housing was a very weak function

compared to office activities. A protection of offices activities to a certain extent was there-

fore not thought necessary. In Copenhagen on the other side, housing is reaching prices

similar to offices. To guarantee that both functions remain in the city, they are protected in

at least one land-use kind.

To further protect the housing and its residents from being pushed out by market

forces in Brussels, a total or partial conversion of dwellings, or even the destruction of a

dwelling, is only allowed when compensatory measures17 are taken or one of the prede-

fined conditions is met18. Above this housing land-uses have a basic requirement that at

least one dwelling has to be maintained in every building. Also Copenhagen is asking

compensation for the loss of housing functions during conversions, but no legal framework

to support it was found. A strict protection of housing is less necessary as it is more equal

in economical terms in Copenhagen (see actual reuse).

! 41

16 Normally this is 50%, but local plans can adjust between 40 and 75%, like is done in the historical city centre.

17 On the same plot or in the same area, a housing function with at least the same surface has to be added to maintain the housing function in the area.

18 (1) If the space is intended for offices of independent professions and this only up until 45% of a house and 15% of an apartment building. (2) Also when it is altered to house public services or is substituted for green areas, a conversion is allowed without compen-sation. (3) When it allows the reconversion of a listed building. (4) The extension or found-ing of retail, when the building is placed within a shopping street. (5) Furthermore a pro-duction facility can replace housing, but only when it is for an extension.

Some zoning will always be necessary to exclude from housing as certain activities

are noisy, polluting or need large surfaces. These areas are delimited in both cases as ar-

eas used for (light) industry, workshop, craft, stock, wholesale, transport and warehousing

(In Copenhagen defined as JTEH land-uses see Table 6, or in Brussels as industrial, har-

bour and logistics). In these land-uses only industry together with other companies that are

naturally seen in the area are possible.

6.1.5.3. Possibilities created by Land-use Plans - Offices

As already mentioned before, Brussels has a history of primacy of office space over all

other functions. They therefore introduced the map of the remaining office area to control

the further development of offices. This map mentions how much more floor area for of-

fices can be added according to its place in the gridwork19 (see figure 3). This maximum

are only for mixed areas and areas for housing, where offices are furthermore limited to a

certain surface.

The aim of this plan is to have spatially dispersed offices and allow housing to be de-

veloped in these areas. The floor areas for offices in Mixed-use land-use may not surpass

1000 sqm per building in Brussels, with a functional maximum of 500 sqm for offices and

production facilities. In Copenhagen this mix-use is translated into maximum 60%, but the

municipality plan advises housing to be more important than services.

Housing land-uses are very restrictive for mixing with other functions; in Copenhagen

only 100 sqm per building can be used for services20 in the in the lowest density zones,

while in Brussels both housing land-use kinds already allow 250 sqm of offices per build-

ing. Offices therefore are much more limited in their possibilities than housing, though in

Brussels it still has a large zone in the middle and east of the city centre where office

! 42

19 Each grid consist of a group of plots and has a maximum allowed new office area. It is important to mention that smaller offices (<75) and offices between 75 and 200 sqm that do not take up more than 45% of the total area of an existing house, are not taken into ac-count to calculate the remaining possible office space. Offices between 75 and 200 sqm have the further condition that they have to be the main residence of the person who practises the activities or is a one of the main stakeholders of the company. Also offices in apartment buildings for independent professions (i.e. inde-pendent doctor or lawyer) are not taken into account if they do not take up more than 15% of the floor area of the building.

20 Defined as shops, liberal professions like doctors, professional and leisure education, workshops (handwork)

space has a free game to develop (see figure 5 for Administration land-use). Also the

services land-use in Copenhagen is primarily aimed at offices, but housing can maximally

develop up till 15% or 50% when mentioned in a local or municipal plan.

It is important to mention that the land-use plan in Brussels already foresees the ex-

tension of companies beyond their initial surface, though this is only possible under the

conditions of a public inquiry.

Figure 3: The gridwork for allowed offices in Brussels

(Source: http://geowebas1.ci.irisnet.be/PRASCASBANL/viewer.htm)

Allowed offices in Housing areas

Allowed offices in Mixed area

6.1.5.4. Possibilities created by Land-use Plans - Industry

In Copenhagen warehouse and workshop activity can hardly be mixed with other func-

tions, especially housing function excludes a mix, while in Brussels a mix is possible. This

allowed mix can be explained by the historically grown situation in the canal zone where

housing and warehouses have coexisted since long. Warehouses and workshops are

even allowed under certain environmental conditions to make extensions in housing,

! 43

33 Indre by Rammer for Lokalplanlægning

C* - Krystalgade: Der kan opføres bebyggelse i gårdrum og evt. etableres parkering efter bestemmelser fastsat i lokalplan.C* - Gråbrødretorv: I bebyggelsen mod Gråbrødretorv langs Kejsergade , Gråbrødretorv, N iels Hemmingsens Gade og Grå-brødrestræde kan kælder, stueetage og 1. sal anvendes til bo-ligformål eller publikumsorienterede serviceerhverv, såsom restauranter, butikker og lignende . Etager over 1. sal skal an-vendes til boligformål.S* - Kultorvet: Der kan påbygges 1 etage på eksisterende be-byggelse .

”MIDDELALDERBYEN”:O5* - Christians Brygge syd og ”Bryghusgrunden”: Bebyg-gelse forudsættes disponeret i sammenhæng. I lokalplaner kan fastsættes bestemmelser om opfyldninger. O* - Christians Brygge nord: Den maksimale bebyggelses-procent er 165, og den maksimale bygningshøjde er 25 m. O* - Det Kongelige Bibliotek: Den maksimale bebyggelses-procent er 195, og den maksimale bygningshøjde er 25 m.O1* - Havnegade: Området kan anvendes til anløbsplads for passagerbåde med tilhørende mindre terminalanlæg i 1 etage .S* - Nørregade/Krystalgade: Boligandelen af det samlede eta-geareal skal udgøre mindst 10 procent.

mixed use and administration area. As there is no minimum amount of industry in these

areas, industry can easily disappear in these areas. Industry is mostly mixed with housing

and offices in the east of the pentagon around the office zone. Only a small zone is pro-

tected by its own exlcusionary land-use kind. In Copenhagen warehouse activity is mainly

located in its own land-use, where only offices and dwellings (owner) connected to the in-

dustries can be located.

Figure 4-L: Land use in the first district of Copenhagen

Figure 4-R: Land use in the historical core of the first district of Copenhagen

31

MIDDELGRUNDSFORTET

REFSHALEØEN

WILDERS PLADS

TORVEGADE

REFSHALEVEJ

HOLMEN

PRINSESSEGADE

See Table 6 for the key

! 44

Figure 5: Land-use in Brussels historical district

http://geowebas1.ci.irisnet.be/PRASAFFECTATIONNL/viewer.htm

Living areas with residential character

Typical residential area

Mixed Areas

Strongly mixed Areas

Administration Area

Areas for public services

Urban Industry

Areas of regional importance

! 45

6.1.5.5. Conclusions on Land-use and strategic Plans

Strategic plans definitely show their use for allowing governments to make decisions

without being attached to a predefined framework. It reveals the path that can be walked

and the zones that should be developed. Strategic plans in Brussels and Copenhagen

have special attention for zones that have to be converted. As the future is uncertain, the

uses are not yet defined for these zones. A first call for flexibility in land-use is hereby

given. Major zones of conversions might have elaborated agendas, the smaller individual

conversions are only briefly touched. In Copenhagen, except for one small sentence on

student housing, only major conversion projects are mentioned. Brussels does have more

awareness of smaller conversions in the city centre as they are following up vacancy for

this purpose and have zones to promote housing. Although this looks a lot, interviews21

have shown that ministries only know few about this topic and do not (yet) have specific

policies only linked to conversion. City governments are therefore not aware of its full ca-

pacity.

Analysing both cities" land-uses has proven that both Brussels and Copenhagen have

considerable zones that allow functional switches. First of all retail is such a mixed function

that it does not have its proper land-use and is allowed in all land-use kinds. This makes

retail a highly flexible function.

Looking at the combinations possible, housing is the most flexible function in both cit-

ies. First of all, conversion from housing to other functions is limited and only possible un-

der certain conditions. Secondly only the industrial land-use is seriously limiting conversion

to housing. Thirdly, the housing land-use kind only allows a minimal mix with other func-

tions. Office might be the biggest victim as they have the highest flexibility to start adaptive

reuse from and this for the historical districts of both cities. Hereby especially conversions

between housing and offices will be possible via the existent land-use plans.

In general, except one, Brussels has the most flexible land-use plan for the city centre

as it allows the highest functional switches in all kinds of land-uses. Brussels moreover of-

fers a lot of extra flexibility for other conversions via the possibility of extensions without

the need for creating an extra special land-use plan.

! 46

21 I have made several attempts to contact that different ministries to talk about this sub-ject, but none knew the right person to talk about it.

Table 7: Land-uses and their possibilities

Land-use Brussels Copenhagen Highest flexibility

Retail No specific land-use kind because of flexi-bilityNo specific land-use kind because of flexi-bility

Brussels allows re-tail to sprout up more spontane-ously.

Retail

Outside shopping zones shops can grow and enlarge considerably

Localisation of retail highly governed by state

Brussels allows re-tail to sprout up more spontane-ously.

Housing Mix with small of-fices and workshops

Mix with small of-fices

Larger surfaces of other functions can be combined in Brussels

Mixed Mainly housing and offices till 1000 sqm. All functions except housing may rise till 1500 per building

Dominated by hous-ing (40-75%) and a high mix of offices

Copenhagen

Offices Office zone with no maximum for hous-ing

Office zone with a max of 50 % off al-lowed housing

Brussels

Industry - harbour exclusionary, only a house for the proprie-taryexclusionary, only a house for the proprie-tary

/

Public services Inflexible land-use kind. Only conversions between services of common good are possible.

Inflexible land-use kind. Only conversions between services of common good are possible.

High presence in the centre of Co-penhagen. In Brus-sels public functions are more mixed with other land-uses

! 47

6.2. Actual reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen

6.2.1. Overall conversions

Building information is crucial in knowing where the present reuse is happening,

though the follow up of conversions in the city is not a natural process. Without knowledge

on the dynamics of reuse, no policies to support (un)wanted changes caused by reuse can

be elaborated. Brussels only has sustained data on conversions from and to offices. The

#Review of Office Property" (Coekelberghs & De Beule, 2009) studies all the building per-

mits that consider offices. Furthermore a smaller study on the reuse of workshops and

warehouses is done by the Regional Development Authority of Brussels (GOMB - SDRB).

This study is also based on the building permits issued for workshops and warehouses

during a 22 months period.

For Copenhagen, no reliable figures on conversion of buildings could be found. They

have statistics on conversions, but the Bank of Statistics did not register any conversions

between 1986-1995. This is highly unlikely, as functions in Copenhagen changed consid-

erably (see Table 8): an area comparable to at least 13 % (e/d) of the city underwent an

adaptive reuse or has been demolished in the past 23 years. Office, housing and welfare

institution had the highest rise (column b) in surface. Factories and other buildings used for

production lost 40% their original surface. Hereby one can say that Copenhagen became a

totally different city in only 23 years.

Reuse in the historical city centre of Copenhagen furthermore cannot be calculated

directly. Via an analysis of the whole municipality of Copenhagen, trends for the historical

city centre will be deciphered via interviews and statistics on the district level.

The irony of this lack of information is that both for Copenhagen and Brussels reuse

could be easily registered with a minimal extra effort: during a building permit22or registra-

tion of change all data of the previous use and the new use are already given to their re-

spective bureaux of statistics. The problem is that in Brussels the office of statistics only

registers the new use, while in Copenhagen they simply register and unregister uses with-

out keeping track of the changes. Therefore all data used on adaptive reuse comes from

own calculations (all for Copenhagen) or from studies based on building permits.

! 48

22 This request for mentioning the previous use only happens for building permits of hous-ing in Brussels. No previous use is asked for building permits from other uses

Table 8: Possible conversion and functional changes in Copenhagen (Own calculations; Statistik Banken Denmark)

Absolute surfaces in 1000 sqmAbsolute surfaces in 1000 sqmAbsolute surfaces in 1000 sqm New Constructions

*

Demolition or

Adaptive Reuse

Function

Residential buildings

Office, trade, inventory, incl. pub-

lic administration

Public institutions**

Recreation facilities

Hotel, restaurant, hair dresser and

other services

Power stations, gaswork, etc.

Residential buildings for commu-

nities

Non-residential farm buildings

Student hostels

Transportation, garage or other

unspecified transport and trade

Factories, workshops, and other

buildings used for production

Total

Sum of Absolute values

1986 (a) 2009 (b) Change

(b-a)

From 1986 till 2009

(c)

(b-a)-c

21593 24209 2616 2.544 72

6029 7718 1689 2.141 -452

2770 3454 684 589 95

381 503 122 148 -26

640 757 117 154 -37

282 283 1 56 -55

331 329 -2 29 -31

55 26 -29 1 -30

346 293 -53 65 -118

520 404 -116 105 -221

2618 1564 -1054 249 -1.303

35565 (d) 39540 3975 6.083 -2.108

6949 4548 (e)

* inclusive extensions

**Institutions for pre-school children, Sports hall, Hospitals, Education facilities, Cultural purposes, Townhouses and the like

A first indication for adaptive reuse can be calculated by lowering down the change of

the absolute surfaces with the amount of new constructions during this period (see Table

8). A positive figure means that not enough new constructions were built to explain the rise

in surface. In consequence, part of the rise is linked with adaptive reuse to this function. A

negative figure means that more demolition or reuse away of this function were made than

new buildings were constructed. Via this calculation one sees that only residential build-

ings and welfare institutions have a clear shortage of new constructions compared to the

amount of functional change. They lack respectively 72.000 sqm and 95.000 sqm. Though,

this doesn"t seem impressive if one compares it with the 4 million sqm of new surfaces that

were added during this 23 year period, one cannot forget that the last column is a netto

figure, meaning that the eventual figure of functional reuse lies much higher. To truly un-

derstand the size and dynamics behind these figures, a further research on functional re-

use is needed.

! 49

To support the argument for reuse per function, a own calculation is made based on

the registration of the functions of buildings at the BBR (Bygnings- og Boligregistret/ Build-

ing and Housing Register). Unfortunately there are a lot of delays in registering at the BBR

register, which makes it less reliable than a study on the building permits, like the study is

done in Brussels. Nevertheless this study can give important trends. The ideal case for

calculation the amount of adaptive reuse would be to follow the evolution of the function of

every building in the zone of study. As this is not possible, a study on a more aggregated

level is done. The following figures about reuse in Copenhagen are based on the evolu-

tions of the surfaces of the buildings built in a particular 5-year period (for example build-

ings built from 1970-1974) with a particular function. This grouped surfaces than can be

followed over a 22 years period (1986-2008). Therefore in stead of an individual building a

group of buildings with a particular function and a particular age is followed. The following

rule makes it possible to study the functional changes in Copenhagen:

Normally the surface of the buildings built before 1986, cannot go up in the studied pe-

riod starting on January 1986, as buildings built in 1986 are added to another group of

buildings23. By calculating all rises in surfaces for each particular category (495 in total),

the total reuse together with its extensions can be calculated24. By compensating the cal-

culations for the extensions made in these years, functional reuse is corrected and re-

ceives a more realistic figure25.

! 50

23 The only exception for this rule is when extensions to these buildings are made.

24 Also a reuse away from a function can be calculated via calculating all declines for a particular function. A downside of this calculation is that no data on demolitions are avail-able.

25 Extensions can only be partially corrected by lowering down the amount of reuse in a particular year by the surface added via extensions. There is also an inconsistency be-tween the data on the building stock and data on extensions because of delays and bad registration of kind of construction activity, hereby the full reach of extensions is possibly not registered.

!"

#!!"

$!!"

%!!"

&!!"

'!!"

(!!"

)!!"

*!!"

#+*(" #+*+" #++$" #++'" #++*" $!!#" $!!&" $!!)"

!"###$%&'$

()*+$

,-./+)$01$234*5$67*89:)$+)/%)$-;$<38);=*.);$!>?0@A##?$$

BCD;$<*5E/5*93;%F$GGHI$

,-./-"0122-03-4"567"

4737"18"937:/:0/"

;-<=72>"

?-@"A1</32.0:1</"

A1=BC-3-4"

,-./-"A122-03-4"567"

1@<"A7C0.C7:1</"18"

-D3-</61</"

A first overall calculation off adaptive reuse is shown in Figure 6, where all presumed

adaptive reuse for all functions is summed up and compared to new constructions com-

pleted. The two major peaks (1986 and 1988) at the start of the study are not seen as ac-

tual reuse as multi-dwelling houses and office buildings constructed before 1900 already

count for 295.000 sqm of #conversions" in 1988. After consulting Statistics Denmark for an

explanation, a delay in registering functional change or extensions, especially for buildings

built for before 1977 (the start of the database) might clarify the major rise in 1988 and

1986 (Awaad, 2010). This error will come back in the coming graphs on reuse. Using the

database of the building stock I calculated my own extensions26 and then lowered it down

from the calculation for reuse. As information seems trustworthier from 1989 on, the analy-

sis of the data will start from here.

From 1989 till 1997, one sees that adaptive reuse carries the same capacity as new

construction to comply with the new functional needs of Copenhagen. Both add new us-

able surfaces, but adaptive reuse uses existing buildings to guide the functional change of

the city. In 1998, new constructions take a leap away from adaptive reuse. From then on

both are following an individual path where new constructions dominate the functional

changes that are happening in Copenhagen. During this period adaptive reuse stabilises

around 100.000 sqm. Only during a small crisis in the building sector in 2003, conversion

! 51

26 Own calculation of extensions is based on the sum of every rise in surface of all 22 kind of buildings together for one age of buildings (for example 1970-1974).

and new construction come together again. It proves that new constructions are more

used during times of economic prosperity, as probably not enough empty buildings are

available to supply the new functional needs. Adaptive reuse has a certain maximum equal

to the amount of vacant buildings, while new constructions are linked to the building ca-

pacity and the amount off available land, which also includes the replacement off an exist-

ing building. This extra capacity is well visible when the building sector recovers in 2004

and new constructions keep on rising to a 22-year maximum in 2007. Reuse only rises

ones to a peak of 300.000 sqm and immediately falls afterwards. During crises times, visi-

ble in 2008, adaptive reuse declines together with new constructions.

A first important conclusion on the capacity of adaptive reuse in Copenhagen teaches

that the maximum capacity of adaptive reuse lies lower than new construction. Adaptive

reuse in Copenhagen typically reaches around 100- to 200.000 sqm a year, with one sel-

dom jump above it. New constructions on the other side can easily surpass this barrier in

times of wealth, as they are not dependent on the amount of available buildings. Both new

constructions and adaptive reuse are crisis prone. In 2008, the start of the crisis is also a

start in the decline for both activities. In 2009, which is not visible on the graph, there is a

further decline in new constructions27. An overall trend therefore seems to be that reuse

takes less advantages of building booms, but also suffers from economic crises.

Next chapters will go deeper into the dynamics adaptive reuse for the most important

functions (Housing, office and industry). What is the capacity of adaptive reuse to supply

new housing will be one of the major questions. Though industry and office did not have a

surplus in the calculation for possible reuse (last column Table 8), they still might form a

good indicator for which buildings were used to provide the new surface of residential and

welfare buildings as offices and industrial buildings had the highest negative figure. Brus-

sels might not have an overall calculation on reuse, specific calculations of adaptive reuse

for particular functions were possible to make.

! 52

27 Reuse cannot be calculated yet as there are no figures disposable on the surfaces per function, per year of construction for January 2010.

6.2.2. Adaptive Reuse of Housing

Total reuse does not tell anything about to and from which function reuse is happening.

In London and Toronto, the most significant components in functional change of the city

centres were office-to-housing conversions (Heath, 2001). As Copenhagen and Brussels

are undergoing a population rise (Statistik Kobenhavn, 2010; Statbel, 2010), same trends

can be expected.

Graphs about the evolution of a function (#) are based on the following processes:

Evolution of housing surface = Adaptive Reuse to housing + new construction of hous-

ing + extension of housing - Adaptive Reuse away from housing - demolition of housing

Delays in registration of new construction or extensions and changes in buildings from

1986-2009 can lead to inconsistencies between the overall change in a function and new

surfaces added. As both come from different databases..

Figure 7

Rise in existing stock consists of:

* Extensions and Adaptive Reuse to #

While decline of # surface will mean:

* *Demolition and Adaptive Reuse away

! 53

-375

-250

-125

0

125

250

375

500

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Evolution of Residential buildings in Copenhagen (municipality)

Surf

ace in 1

.000 s

qm

Year

Decline of Residential Surface (Own Calculations)**Rise in Existing Stock (Own Calculations)*New Construction (Statistics Denmark, 2010)

The evolution of housing in Copenhagen (see figure 7) has some interesting trends.

The first remarkable fact is that new construction and conversion (rise in Existing stock) of

housing in Copenhagen almost fell still in 1998. Then suddenly from 2000 on housing con-

struction rose considerably to reach it highest peak in 2007. A second fact is that during

the same booming period, the decline of residential surface almost fell still. It seems that

after 1994 the conversion of housing to another function did not seem attractive anymore.

A further research on these dynamics brings us back to 1986, when the government took

austerity measures. These resulted in stricter requirements to the cash position of property

buyers and borrowers. The effects did not stay away, in 1987 demand for housing fell dras-

tically. Falling prices, bankruptcies and compulsory purchases brought housing construc-

tion to a standstill. This standstill is also visible in figure 6 for all functions together. This

situation lasted until 1993, when interest rates dropped and it became easier to borrow

money with property as security. Since then housing prices and demand have gone up

(Kristensen, 2007). The escalation of housing prices has been most dramatic in Copenha-

gen (Kristensen, 2007), hereby housing prices could reach higher than the ones for of-

fices. A conversion to housing therefore became a profitable undertaking and made offices

an important supplier of new housing. Till 1993 the process still worked in the opposite

way.

From 1994 on, when austerity measures were dropped, new construction of housing

skyrocketed and adaptive reuse only had a slight increase. Still adaptive reuse is respon-

sible for 31% off new dwellings. The overall capacity since 1989 (trustworthy period)

reaches 38% off new dwellings. Though this figure includes extensions, it cannot be ig-

nored that the existing built fabric is of uttermost importance for supplying new dwellings to

the population.

A comparison between the municipality and the first district of Copenhagen demon-

strates the importance of the historical city centre in adaptive reuse. While Copenhagen

municipality had a rise of 156.000 sqm in office space, the historical city centre lost 24.000

sqm. At the same time the inner city gained 74.400 sqm of multi-dwelling houses (see Ta-

ble 9). Interviewees (Ebensen, Andersen) acknowledged that for years the historical city

centre is loosing office space in favour of housing, while outside the city centre new busi-

ness parks are being developed. Also warehouse activity had a significant decline and ex-

plains the second part of the rise in new dwellings.

! 54

The internal restructuring of the city is linked with the physical characteristics of the

inner city. During the studied period, Copenhagen had a high demand for large modern

offices. As the older buildings in the city centre could not meet today"s office standards and

furthermore were not allowed to be replaced by new ones (protected historical city centre,

see chapter 6.1), office activity moved to the canal zone where the possibility for new

modern office space was fulfilled. These old offices might be obsolete for office activity,

they offer a good location for housing to step in. Housing furthermore is less demanding

and had skyrocketing prices, which could compete with the declining/stabilising prices of

the old offices.

Table 9: Comparison between the evolutions in the historical city centre and the mu-nicipality of Copenhagen 2006-2009 (Own calculations and Statistik Denmark, 2010)

City centre Copenhagen (First dis-

trict)

City centre Copenhagen (First dis-

trict)

City centre Copenhagen (First dis-

trict)

Municipality of CopenhagenMunicipality of CopenhagenMunicipality of Copenhagen

Building use

Multi-family

Public institutions

Family houses

Hotel, Hostel, restaurant,

etc..

Office, commercial and stor-

age

Public Works

Production and stocks

Transport and garage facili-

ties

Total

2006 2009 Change 2006 2009 Change

3028,5 3102,9 74,4 24769,9 25942,6 1172,7

1318,5 1337,4 18,9 7152,2 7336,9 184,7

18,8 19,2 0,4 2109,7 2204,9 95,2

498,4 498,8 0,4 508 500,7 -7,3

3987,0 3962,8 -24,2 9342,2 9498,1 155,9

50,8 21,0 -29,8 385,4 357,5 -27,9

285,4 237,8 -47,6 1969,7 1755,0 -214,7

135,8 155,9 20,1 544,1 628,5 84,4

9323,2 9335,8 12,6 46781,2 48224,2 1443

*Institutions for pre-school children, Sports hall, Hopitals, Education facilities, Cultural

purposes, Townhouses and the like

It is not the first time buildings in the historical city centre of Copenhagen are undergo-

ing these changes. Most buildings here are from the end of the 19th century/ start of the

20th century. These buildings were designed for having retail or offices at the ground floor,

more offices at the first and housing at the first and upper floors. Also workshops were

possible in the ground and cellar floors. Somewhere in the 20th century a price gap in fa-

vour of offices arose, afterwards capitalist forces converted half of the city centre to offices.

Now housing has regained its strength and buildings are switching back to a residential

function.

! 55

In Brussels one sees a similar process going on. Though here the study is much more

limited and is only based on conversion from offices and warehouses. From almost no im-

portance, conversions to housing rose to almost comparable levels of new constructions in

2008 (see Table 10). Though, 2008 is a year where the crisis struck and housing construc-

tions was only one fifth of the figures of 2006. If the trend of conversion to housing pro-

ceeds, and new constructions revive again, conversion from offices to housing will still play

prominent factor in supplying new housing. One fifth to on quarter of new housing in Brus-

sels can easily be delivered by converting offices. By summing up the conversion from

warehouses and offices, adaptive reuse to housing reaches one third to half off new con-

structions. Adaptive reuse therefore also in Brussels plays an indispensable role in supply-

ing new housing for the population.

Table 10 Comparison between new housing and conversions of offices to housing

(Statbel, 2010; Sophie Coekelberghs et al, 2009)

BrusselsBrusselsBrussels CopenhagenCopenhagen

New Con-struction of Housing

Conversion from offices to housing

Estimation* of conver-sion from warehouses to housing

New Con-structions

Total con-versions to housing

2005

2006

2007

2008

259.433 30.904 / 175.000 107.000

303.786 30.117 80.000 260.000 63.000

210.602 42.864 70.000 320.000 100.000

62.244 48.007 / 197.000 48.000

*Estimation is based on the decline in warehouse surface

/ means no estimation is possible for this year

! 56

6.2.3. Adaptive Reuse of Offices

“All new office constructions are based on one principle: flexibility, flexibility, flexibility”

(interview Anderson). If an existing office building does not fit this paradigm, it has a low

chance of survival in the office market. However, they might offer ideal candidates for other

uses ... if market prices are competitive.

Both for Brussels as for Copenhagen, the inner cities are still central business districts

where more than half of the surface is used for offices. For Brussels 63,39% of the floor

surfaces in 1997 (Urbis, 1997) were used for non residential purposes, in central Copen-

hagen a similar figure of 66,55% is found for 2009 (Statistik Denmark, 2010). For whole

Copenhagen a seemingly contradicting story shows up: offices underwent the second

most important increase in floor area and at the same time had the second highest figure

for conversions or demolitions of all functions (see Table 8). Last chapter already ex-

plained part of this dichotomy. This chapter will have a closer look at these evolutions.

Figure 8

Like the figures of the overall trends and the trends for housing (figure 6&7), there is

not any clear evolution till 1997. From 1997 on, new construction of offices took a clear

leap while conversion away declined. During this time of economic prosperity, there was a

-150

-75

0

75

150

225

300

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Evolution of Office Space in Copenhagen (municipality)

1.0

00 s

qm

Year

Decline in existing stock (Own Calculations)Rise in existing stock (Own Calculations)New Offices Completed (Statistics Denmark, 2010)

! 57

shortage of office buildings, hereby also the older office buildings were still used. 2002 is a

turning point where conversion away started rising anew. Part of the explanation is that the

balance between new offices added and needed offices space tipped to an oversupply.

This led to a move out of the dated old office building in the historical city centre (grey col-

oured zone in figure 9) to the new office buildings in the canal zone (Brown in figure 9). As

one already saw in the housing chapter, these offices were then reconverted to housing.

This process is clearly visible up until the start of the new economical crises in 2008.

Still, since 1989 28%28 of the rise in office surface can be explained by conversion to

and extensions of offices. If one calculates it from 1997 on (making it comparable with the

Brussels case), 23% of new office space added resulted from an adaptive reuse. These

figures form a good indication for the scale of reuse, but still have to be taken with cau-

tiousness as Statistics Denmark has many delays in registering changes in surfaces and

new constructions completed.

As physical demands for offices have risen, it is no surprise that conversion to offices

has declined in recent years. Though conversion still takes up an important share off new

offices added. The continuing conversion activity has to be seen in the light of the declin-

ing harbour activities. Hereby old warehouses came free and offered an ideal location for

large open planned offices (interviews Ebbesen, Anderson). Plh architects, one of the in-

terviewees, is a nice example of this. It furthermore is an area that offered large plots of

land, a high visibility and is placed right next to the city centre. For this reason a lot off new

offices were constructed in the harbour area. It moreover became the most expensive of-

fice zone (Sadolin Albaek, 2010). Without the protection of spatial planning housing would

have a hard time competing with the office prices over here. On the other side, the move-

ment away of offices from the historical city centre, means that competition between both

most dominant uses, housing and offices, is partly diverted to other locations.

In conclusion one can say that offices could not modernise in the city centre and in

consequence moved the centre of the CBD to the canal zone. New constructions further-

more are more important for offices than for housing. A link that fits with the physical de-

mands of the office function (see chapter 5.1).

! 58

28 Formula for calculation: (Sum surfaces conversion to offices 1989-2008)/ (sum surfaces conversion to offices 1989-2008 + sum surfaces new constructions 1989-2008)

Figure 9 The old office zone (grey) and the canal zone (brown) as the extention of the

central business district of Copenhagen (Own adaptation; original Sadolin Albaek, 2010:

31)

! 59

In Brussels there is a similar trend in adaptive reuse: since 2001 conversions away

from office space is on the rise 29 (see figure 10). Though, during the same period conver-

sions to and extensions of offices were still responsible for 27% of the growth in office

space, making it a non-negliable factor for the growth in the office sector of Brussels. Typi-

cally, like in Copenhagen, these are conversions of large old warehouses and workshops.

Also regularisations of old conversions are still responsible for a rise in surface30. Though

in 2008 it was only responsible for 5.600 sqm of office space added.

Figure 10 (Data source: Coekelberghs & De Beule, 2009: 4)

Conversions away from offices is still a recent phenomenon in Brussels as before

2000 it was almost zero. For a long time there was no need in new housing as population

was falling in Brussels, above this housing in the city centre had considerable lower prices

than office real estate. Last years, housing prices together with the number of inhabitants

have been rising considerably, hereby Brussels is experiencing two trends for office: con-

versions away from offices mainly for housing (65% of conversion projects, see appendix

-100.000

50.000

200.000

350.000

500.000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Evolution of Office Space in Brussels

Surf

ace in 1

.000 s

qm

Year

Growth of the office stock in existing buildingsDiminution of the office stock in existing buildingsNew developments > 500 m2

! 60

29Diminishing can be partly demolisment of the building, but is seldom (Coekelberghs, 2009)

30 Till 1992 change of uses did not need a building permit in Brussels, conversions hap-pened before this date can be regularised.

9.5) and conversions to offices from workshops and warehouses. Seldom a house is con-

verted into offices as housing is a protected function (see 6.1).

A dissection of the trends inside Brussels for the year 2008 show that conversion is

much more important in the city centre (municipality of Brussels = first district of Copenha-

gen) than new constructions (see figure 11). In the first ring of municipalities around the

municipality of Brussels (see appendix 9.3 for localisation three rings), almost only conver-

sions were made and no new construction, resulting in a decrease of office space in this

ring.

Figure 11 (Data source: Coekelberghs & De Beule, 2009)

In the second ring new offices are still being constructed and conversion is on its low-

est. Two Municipalities, Sint-Pieters and St-Lambrechts-Woluwe make up 75% of the con-

versions away from office in the second ring. This can be explained by the fact that two

municipalities are known for their expensive housing, hereby housing prices can compete

with offices prices. Above this office prices decrease from the city centre on and therefore

offices are already cheaper here than in the Central Business District (North, Pentagon,

Leopold and Louise = municipality of Brussels). For this reason housing in St-Lambrechts-

Woluwe can cost up till 3.500 Euro/sqm, while offices only go up to 2500 euro/sqm be-

cause of its decentralised location.

-37500

-25000

-12500

0

12500

25000

37500

50000

second ring first ring Brussels municipality

Evolution of office space in the Capital Region of Brussels by zone 2008

Growth in existing buildingDiminishing in existing buildingNew Offices

! 61

Figure 12: Reconversion of offices larger than 500 sqm from 1997 till 2007 (Coekel-

berghs, 2009; own comments))

Looking at the map of conversions of offices made from 1997-2007 (figure 13), most

conversions to housing happen in central residential areas (Mixed areas and housing ar-

eas) (Coekelberghs & De Beule, 2009). This means that popular urban housing areas are

regaining importance and can even push back some of the office function, while pure

mono-functional office districts like the Leopold quarter only have few conversions (see

Table 11 for price differences). Here most conversions are linked to embassy activities

(listed as equipment, see figure 12). Mono-functional districts therefore are not undergoing

! 62

thorough changes and becoming more mixed. A problem that certainly has to be ad-

dressed.

Brussels has a much higher competition between offices and housing in the historical

city centre than in Copenhagen. First off all there is a high presence of large open-plan of-

fice buildings that are up for refurbishment to present day standards. Offices therefore are

remaining in the city centre. This is only possible to a lack of spatial planning up until 1998

(Dessouroux, 2010).

Only on the Avenue Louise and some quarters in the city centre like avenue Anspach,

Southstreet housing can compete with offices. Avenue Louise is originally a housing

neighbourhood, where old mansions have been converted to offices. Recent years have

shown that housing function can compete with offices as the offices are not always able to

be brought up to new standards or the plateaux of the buildings are too small to be eco-

nomical viable. Same reasons can be found for some zones of the pentagon.

Table 11: Comparison of Real Estate characteristics of Copenhagen and Brussels

Copenhagen Brussels

Average Price for housing 2688 Euro/ sqm(Kristensen 2007)3056 (GPG, 2010)

+- 1500-1800 Euro/ sqm average (interview Otte-vaere)

Central location Prices for owner occupied housing

! 4291/ sqm (GPG, 2010) ! 2,465/sqm (GPG, 2010)

! 2300-2800/sqm

(Van Mierlo, 2006)

Square Metre Price in central locations

Less than housing in the historical city centre, water-front more than housing (in-terviews Anderson & Ebbe-sen)

3000- 4000 (Interview Otte-

vaere)

Prime office rent (CBRE, 2010)

228 Euro/ sqm/ year 265 Euro/ sqm/ year

Owner occupied housing 19% ((LAURIDSEN, and SKAK, 2007)

42% (FOD, 2001)69% (FOD, 1981)

* Based on interviews

! 63

A downside of the creation of housing out of offices is the price for a conversion pro-

ject. In consequence one sees that housing out off offices are not a supplier for young

middle class families. Both Brussels and Copenhagen have a huge problem in the avail-

ability of cheap housing. The cheapest location for offices in Brussels are also the places

where nobody wants to live. Woluwedal, Avenue Kolonel Bourgh and Marcel Thiry are

three examples of cheap office location with high vacancy (+- 20 %, Doornaert et al,

2010), but without any urban atmosphere or equipment for possible inhabitants (no

schools, kindergarden, doctor, ...). A conversion to housing in these locations is therefore

only desirable when the government makes serious investments in public equipment for

these places.

! 64

6.2.4 Adaptive Reuse of Warehouses and Workshops

One of the functions that underwent serious changes in absolute and relative shares

are the surfaces linked to workshops and warehouses in Copenhagen (see Table 8) and

Brussels (see figure 14). Last chapters on conversion of housing and offices already talked

about workshops and warehouses as one of the main sources for conversion. This chapter

will thoroughly investigate the loss of industrial space.

For Brussels figures are based on a research made by Verbrouck (2007) for the Re-

gional Development Company of Brussels (GOMB-SDRB). Between June 2006 till January

2008, Brussels lost 172.026 sqm of warehouses and workshops. This means an average

loss of 8.601 m! per month, which equals a cut down in half in only 20 months. Though

one huge demolition project of 30.000 sqm in the municipality of Brussels dominates the

figures, most other activities were the conversion to lofts (figure 15). Conversion of ware-

houses to lofts is a recent phenomenon as between 2000 en 2004 the evolution of ware-

house activity was quite stable (Hansens, 2008). Till 2000 the population was still declin-

ing, after some years a tension for new housing was built up.

Figure 13

0

125000

250000

375000

500000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Evolution of workshops and Warehouses in Brussels (Verbrouck, 2007)

sq

m

Year

Workshops and warehouses

" 65

For warehouses the price-gap with housing is opposite to offices-housing; housing is

higher priced than warehouses. Capital forces therefore are pushing adaptive reuse from

warehouses to housing (and offices) as the legal framework allows this without any

change of plans. Though in Brussels this decline poses a threat for companies who want

to continue their activities as the availability of warehouses and workshops has declined

significantly in a short period while there is still a demand for this function (Gomb, 2008).

A major decline in industry is also visible in the centre of Copenhagen, Christianshavn

(part of the city centre) and to the north of Nyhavn (see figure 9 - brown for old brownfields

next to the canal), major warehouse were converted into housing and offices. In only three

years this function went down 17% in the first district, but is certainly not comparable with

the decimation of warehouses for the whole of Brussels. The whole of Copenhagen saw a

decline of factories and workshops of #only" 36% in 23 years.

Figure 14 proves that not much new construction were added and that the 23 years

were dominated by negative figures of adaptive reuse or demolition. From 1995 a decline

in demolition or functional reuse is visible until 2003, from then on demolition or functional

reuse accelerated till 2006. The high-loss from 2002 till 2006 more or less follows the time

when office and housing conversion and construction boomed. Hereby the link between

workshops, housing and offices can be proven.

Figure 14

-125,00

-81,25

-37,50

6,25

50,00

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Evolution of factories, workshops and other production facilities in Copenhagen

Surf

ace in1

.000 s

qm

Year

Conversions away or DemolitionsConversions to or ExtensionsNew Developments

! 66

In Brussels the major part of projects had one destination: the total conversion to

housing (see figure 16). A location analysis (see figure 15) learns us that most conversions

happen within the 19th century industrial belt bordering the historical city centre of Brus-

sels. Hereby the canal zone is almost visible as a straight line.

Figure 15: Adaptive reuse of warehouses and workshops in Brussels Capital Region (Own

calculations based on figures from the GOMB/ SDRB)

Housing (139)

Retail (7)

Office (4)

Mixed (22) (Mostly Housing-Offices, or housing -retail, or office-retail (1) or offices,

housing and retail

Other unknown ((16) of which 4 Religious building)

* known demolition projects are excluded from the map

! 67

In comparison to Copenhagen only few companies have localised themselves next to

the canal in Brussels. This was the area for the poor people as manufacturing industries

were located here, while the higher socio-economic classes were literally located on the

higher eastern side of the historical city centre. As office development is linked to places of

high standing, they followed the places where the higher classes were living. In conse-

quence one sees that the CBD of Brussels is not linked to the old industrial areas like in

Copenhagen. Only to the north of the canal area there is a small link with the Northern

side of the CBD. As offices are not interested in most of the canal zone, housing can freely

take over the warehouses.

Also to the east of Brussels, in the Maelbeekvallei, the valley of an old river, major

conversions are taking place and this foremost to housing. Here the size of the conver-

sions might the explanation as surfaces here are too small to be workable for offices. A

remarkable mentioning in all the industrial conversions was the conversion of four ware-

houses to religious buildings. This is probably a conversion to a Mosque as empty

churches in Brussels are now becoming supplier for i.e discotheques (Spirito Martino in

Elsene).

It is clear that almost no conversions happen at the periphery of the Brussels Capital

Region, an uninteresting place for urban dwellers. In recent years these locations even

had an extension of warehouse activity. In april 2010 warehouse and workshops again

reach 388.564 sqm (Inventimmo, 2010), this is thanks to 2 huge atypical projects who to-

gether added more than 100.000 sqm: Canal Logistics en Katoen Natie. This trend shows

how warehouse activities are competed away from the city centre, but still have a chance

to survive in the more the peripheral locations where one has a good access with the high-

way, airport and/or canal. This rise proves there is still a strong demand for workshops and

warehouses. Most conversions happen in zones for housing and zones of mixed use

where a conversion can happen without the adaptation of a land-use plan (Verbrouck,

2007). It are the same land-use kinds that also do not offer a problem for conversion be-

tween housing and offices. Brussels therefore will have to take protective measure to keep

this function and therefore also a mix of functions in Brussels alive. A conversion of small

warehouses might still be opted for as they are less economical to govern.

! 68

6.2.5. Conclusion on Adaptive Reuse in Copenhagen and Brussels

Studying adaptive reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen has learned that it is certainly

not a limited process, but takes active part in the evolution of cities. Housing does not only

seem to have the highest legal possibility for conversions, it also actively uses its legal ca-

pacity to convert old offices and warehouses to supply new dwellings. Depending on the

location and physical characteristics of the building, warehouses and workshops will be a

supplier for office space or for housing. If office buildings become obsolete, they mainly

change to housing when the location for an urban lifestyle is right.

As only the three most important functional changes are discussed between offices,

housing and warehouses/workshops, one cannot forget that also public functions, hotels ,

etc take integral part of the process. In Brussels 11% of the office space converted to other

uses were converted into hotels (Coekelberghs & De Beule, 2009). Also in Copenhagen

public functions31 are dominated by extensions and conversions of buildings (see figure

16). Further research on other functions is needed to know the geographical location and

scale of these kind of conversions.

Figure 16 Functional reuse of Public Functions in Copenhagen (Own)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Conversion of Public functions in Copenhagen

Unclarified ChangeConversion to Public functionsConversion away of Public functionsNew constructions

! 69

31 Consisting of libraries, museums, churches, buildings for education and research, build-ing for hospitals, homes, maternity homes, day-care institutions, non-specified holiday purposes

6.3. The Future of Adaptive Reuse in Brussels and Copenhagen

History tells us which places are prone to change and give a good indication for what

the future may bring. A first important fact that influences coming adaptive reuse is that

new offices, housing and industrial buildings are much more specialised than their prede-

cessors (interview Anderson, Nielsen). High rise apartment buildings are full of concrete

slaps that make a reuse more difficult (see 5.1), while new industrial buildings are cladded

with metals plates and have a very light and demountable structure, modern office build-

ings on the other side have a specialised technical infrastructure. When these buildings

become obsolete for their functions, it will be a challenge to adjust them. Though, office

buildings have the best option because they have an open plan and are planned with the

highest rate of flexibility (interview Anderson).

As this study proved that old industrial areas and old smaller (brick) offices are not

seen as ideal places for production facilities or new offices, it seems a natural process that

these buildings continue to evolve to housing; a rising function with less physical require-

ments. A study of CERAA (2008) furthermore illustrated that old industrial buildings mostly

do not have any problems of being reused. The value gap between the central located

workshops-warehouses and offices-housing makes it a profitable undertaking. Therefore

especially the centrally located industries are expected to continue their conversions in

both Brussels and Copenhagen.

In Brussels one sees that spatial planning in the city centre is not of any objection to

this change, Copenhagen on the other side has to wait for a local or municipal plan to al-

low further change of the warehouses in the harbour area (see 5.2). The first district of

Copenhagen will have no warehouses or workshops left in 15 years if present trends con-

tinue to exist. A figure that is approaching fast. The city centre of Brussels only has 14

warehouses left or a total of 7,431 sqm. These warehouses will probably totally disappear

in the next years. Also attractive bordering districts will continue to loose their warehouse

activity: Sint-Gillis, to the South of the pentagon also only has 13 warehouses or work-

shops left. Owners of warehouse in the city-centre almost immediately sell (Verbrouck,

2007).

Looking at the office real-estate market both cities will undergo a physical restructuring

to house modern facilities. The city centre of Brussels differs from Copenhagen by having

large open-planned office buildings that can be renovated, while Copenhagen only has

brick structures. Therefore Copenhagen will have more conversion candidates.

! 70

At this moment both central office markets have the lowest vacancy rate (Doornaert et

al, 2010; JLL, 2010; interview Ottevaere; Sandolin-Albaek, 2010), adaptive reuse at first

sight therefore does not seem to have many candidates. Though these buildings are get-

ting old (Statbel, 2010; Statistik Denmark, 2010) and companies move out to new districts

(Dirckx et al, 2009; interview Andersen), but via price reduction these spots are still occu-

pied by new companies. Copenhagen still offers an attractive office location “for occupiers

that seek attractive surroundings in a unique city”(www.investindk.com). If prices continue

to decline in the old central offices space, housing function may definitely overpower of-

fices in a large part of the historical city centre. A new crisis in the office market via an

overproduction of new offices outside the city centre may lead to a new wave of conver-

sions in Copenhagen.

Brussels, as already mentioned, has a mix of offices. The smaller offices are not that

interesting for international investors (interview Ottevaere), while the large office buildings

stand a good chance to be updated to modern standards as their location has a high

amenity value. A large problem for Brussels is that only high class housing may be able to

compete with office in central locations. One particular neighbourhoud seems to offer a lot

of opportunity for conversion: the Louise district. The local cleaning up of old vacant offices

in the Louisa district already went pretty fast last years, hereby there are no offices any-

more with an uncertain future32 (Doornaert et al., 2009). In addition the Louisa district of-

fers the most possibilities for future adaptive reuse, more than 60% of the buildings are

older than 30 years or have not been renovated for 20 years (see figure 17). Soon their

leasing contracts will be finished and these buildings will have to be renovated if they want

to remain office. As most of them have small plateaux and therefore are less economical

for offices, a conversion stands a good chance against renovation. Moreover, the higher

housing prices in this district allow a better competition with offices than in the rest of the

city. Therefore, most opportunities for conversion to housing can be found here. Also the

city centre has around 40% of old office buildings, but the size of the buildings makes the

story much more ambiguous.

! 71

32 Vacant for a long period

Figure 17 Vacancy by age Class of the Buildings (Doornaert et al., 2009:10 )

Fig. 6 Fig. 7

L’ancienneté des immeubles vacants, comptant au moins 1.000 m! de bureaux, a été ventilée par décennie de construction ou de dernière rénovation (figure 6). Le graphique confirme ce qui se perçoit sur le terrain : c’est dans les quartiers Nord et Midi que l’offre dans des bâtiments neufs ou récemment modernisés est la plus importante. À l’opposé, le quartier Louise présente le pourcentage le plus élevé d’offres dans des immeubles anciens.Le quartier Européen et les quartiers décentralisés offrent une proportion majoritaire de surfaces disponibles dans des bâtiments suffisamment récents (>1990) ; ce n’est donc pas une question de vétusté immobilière qui freine l’occupation des bureaux dans le décentralisé mais bien de localisation devenue inopportune avec le temps.

La question de la vétusté entraîne avec elle celle de l’obsolescence architecturale. Bien sûr, la question de la consommation énergétique influence l’appréciation mais elle n’est pas nécessairement rédhibitoire. Lorsqu’il a été bien conçu, un vieux bâtiment n’est pas automatiquement obsolète. Ainsi l’immeuble ING, avenue Marnix, n’est pas obsolète alors qu’il a été construit il y a plus de quarante ans.

Globalement, les surfaces de bureaux qui sont annoncées en projet (433.000 m!) augmentent d’un tiers par rapport à l’année passée (329.000 m!) (figue 7). Cette augmentation substantielle ne concerne que le CBD. (5)

La petite diminution (-7%) des projets dans le décentralisé constitue un contrecoup logique face à l’affaiblissement de la demande dans ces localisations excentrées. Par contre, le volume des projets est en nette augmentation dans le CBD avec 293.136 m! contre 178.573 m! en 2007 (+64%).Dans le CBD la quasi-totalité des projets porte sur un renouvellement de l’existant, par rénovation ou démolition-reconstruction. Les propriétaires doivent procéder à ces travaux s’ils veulent retrouver des occupants. Ces projets peuvent donc être en contradiction avec les perspectives du marché.

Le quartier Louise, pauvre en projets en 2007 (4.600 m!), attend 30.000 m! mais il s’agit d’une seule rénovation : “The Platinum”.À l’opposé, le centre fait exception au sein du CBD ; il y a une forte diminution des projets par rapport à 2007 (-26%).

De ouderdom van de leegstaande gebouwen (met minstens 1.000 m! kantoorruimte) werd ingedeeld volgens het decennium waarin het gebouw werd opgetrokken of voor de laatste keer werd gerenoveerd (figuur 6). De grafiek bevestigt de vaststellingen op het terrein: in de Noord- en Zuidwijk is het aanbod van kantoren in nieuwe of onlangs gemoderniseerde gebouwen het grootst. In de Louizawijk ligt het percentage van aanbiedingen in oudere gebouwen dan weer het hoogst. De beschikbare ruimten in de Europese wijk en de gedecentraliseerde wijken bevinden zich merendeels in gebouwen die als recent genoeg worden beschouwd (>1990). Het is dus niet de ouderdom van de gebouwen die de bezetting van kantoren in de gedecentraliseerde wijken belemmert, maar wel de ligging ervan die mettertijd ongunstig geworden is.

In dit deel over de ouderdom van de gebouwen is ook de bouwkundige veroudering aan de orde. Uiteraard heeft het energieverbruik een invloed op de waardering van een gebouw door eventuele gebruikers, maar het is niet noodzakelijkerwijs doorslaggevend voor de eventuele aankoop of huur van een kantoor. Een oud gebouw is niet automatisch achterhaald, tenminste als het degelijk

DATE DE DISPONIBILITÉ DES PROJETSUne ventilation a été réalisée en fonction de la date annoncée de disponibilité des surfaces projetées (figue 7). Seuls 43% des surfaces annoncées sont prévues pour 2009, soit 185.213 m!. Cela rejoint plus ou moins les chiffres publiés sur le “pipe-line” dans le précédent numéro de l’Observatoire des bureaux (n° 22, p. 25). Les prévisions données par les agences immobilières sont plus optimistes (20.000 m! en plus) quant au moment exact de la mise à disposition des projets. L’essentiel des projets annoncés pour 2009 se concentre dans le quartier Européen et dans le quartier Nord. La récession y influencera sans doute à la hausse le taux de vacance, d’autant plus que d’autres projets seront finalisés en 2010 dans ces deux quartiers. Par contre, la construction de nouveaux immeubles en décentralisé semble être renvoyée à une date indéterminée. Parmi les surfaces annoncées pour 2010 ou même sans date précise, une part ne sera peut-être jamais construite ou sera fortement différée, comme par exemple les développements sur le site des anciennes brasseries Wielemans à Forest (quartier Midi) ou une partie du projet Greenland à Jette (2e Couronne NO).

ontworpen is. Het ING-gebouw op de Marnixlaan bijvoorbeeld is niet verouderd, hoewel het meer dan veertig jaar geleden werd opgetrokken.

The age of the vacant buildings, including at least 1,000 m! of offices, has been broken down by decade of construction or latest renovation (figure 6). The graph confirms what can be seen in the field: the highest supplies of new or recently modernised buildings are in the Nord and Midi districts. In contrast, the Louise district has the highest percentage of offers in old buildings.The european and decentralised districts offer the largest proportion of spaces available in fairly recent buildings (>1990) so it is not a question of real estate dilapidation that is slowing down the occupation of the offices in the decentralised area but rather the location that has become inopportune over time.

The question of dilapidation leads to the question of architectural obsolescence. Certainly, the question of energy consumption influences evaluation but it is not necessarily prohibitive. If it has been well designed, an old building is not necessarily obsolete. For example, the ING building, in the avenue Marnix, is not obsolete although it was built more than forty years ago.

Devant la menace de surcapacité, les agences immobilières sont inquiètes et l’une d’elles suggère de ne pas entamer le développement de bureaux dans des zones à (ré)urbaniser (telles que Tour & Taxis ou Schaerbeek Formation) avant d’avoir trouvé des occupants pour les projets déjà étudiés (6). Néanmoins, il faut garder à l’esprit que des aménagements dans des zones de cette envergure nécessitent entre quinze et vingt ans avant d’être achevés.

Over het algemeen is de oppervlakte van de kantoren die als project werden aangekondigd met een derde gestegen tegenover vorig jaar (433.000 m! tegenover 329.000 m!) (figuur 7). Deze aanzienlijke verhoging heeft enkel betrekking op het CBD (5).

De geringe afname van projecten (- 7%) in de gedecentraliseerde wijken is een logisch gevolg van de verminderde vraag in deze afgelegen gebieden. De totale oppervlakte van projecten in het CBD is daarentegen fors gestegen (293.136 m! tegenover 178.573 m! in 2007, dit is + 64%).

Pour les chiffres, voir figure 3Voor cijfers, zie figuur 3For data, see figure 3

Projet pour 2010 et plusProject 2010 en laterProject 2010 and beyond

Projet 2009Project 2009Project 2009

Disponible BeschikbaarAvailable

> 2000

> 1990

> 1980

< 1980

Centr

e Ce

ntrum

Ce

ntre

Quart

ier No

rd No

ordwij

k No

rd Dis

trict

Quart

ier Eu

ropée

n Eu

ropes

e wijk

Europ

ean D

istric

t

Quart

ier Lo

uise

Louiz

awijk

Lo

uise D

istric

t

Quart

ier M

idi

Zuidw

ijk

Midi

Distri

ct

Déce

ntrali

sé

Gede

centr

alise

erd

Dece

ntrali

sed

For getting an idea for the future potential for the whole of Brussels I first want to make

a mentioning of two previous studies: one from the previous minister of territory and hous-

ing (BRAT, 2007) and the other one from ministry of economy and employment, that made

a study together with the ministry of the environment and energy. The first research esti-

mates that the present and near future vacancy offers a potential of 350.000 sqm or 1200

housing units for conversions. This is a prudent estimation as offices in the Leopold,

Northern district and decentralised location are excluded from this estimation. The study

furthermore showed that the majority of converted buildings was constructed between

1950 and 1970. The exclusion of larger surfaces (> 30.000 sqm) is a realistic envisioning,

as larger buildings are in the hand of international investors and have a too specified struc-

ture and size that give them a good chance of remaining office space.

The second study of CERAA (2008) is based on the idea that the need for extra office

space will not rise much in the coming 15 years, but new offices will keep on being con-

structed on a steady pace. The reason for the stabilisation in the needed office space is

linked to the more flexible working environment that has let to a more efficient use of

space: employees do not have fixed offices anymore, there is less need for storage, more

tele-working and other working practice innovations. As new offices will keep on being

constructed to support new and more specialised needs, old offices will undergo a fierce

competition to attract new occupiers, pushing prices down for less functional old offices.

! 72

As seen before, a lot of old office have to be refurbished before they can find a new

occupant. The study estimates that potential candidates will move to new modern office

buildings in stead a refurbishment one, hereby a vacancy of up to 4 million square meters

is created. Following the indicators of the previous study of BRAT (2007)33, more than

14.000 flats can be created out of reuse, resembling a huge potential. This means that for

the coming 15 years, the conversion of offices can keep on supplying an important share

of needed housing. I tested this potential at a real estate consultant. Mr. Ottevaere (real

estate consultant) expressed his disbelieve in this potential as he sees more existing of-

fices being refurbished back to modern standards. Above this housing prices cannot yet

fully compete with office prices in most office areas of Brussels. Though, good office loca-

tions will remain good housing locations, without support of the government, the potential

for converting offices into housing cannot be addressed. Above this a further rise of hous-

ing prices till the price of offices looks a far away dream for Brussels as a gap with the

cheaper housing prices in the hinterland will create a new surge of suburbanisation.

Present economical crisis offer a huge potential for reuse in both cities. The economi-

cal crisis speeds up the above mentioned process of making old buildings vacant, because

companies who are occupying these buildings seek opportunities to take up new offices

for the same price as their present occupation (interview Ottevaere). The emptied out

buildings will have a fierce competition as prices are under pressure. New constructed

buildings have to be rented, while old buildings already earned their money and an in-

vestment for refurbishment therefore can wait. The present economical crisis is therefore

heightening the probability for reuse. As vacancy is standing at 10% in Brussels and crisis

continues, planners and politicians were asking for a moratorium on new offices. Brussels

minister-president Picqué is not for a moratorium on office construction, first of all he fears

that it will harm the competition with Flanders and Wallonia (Degreef, 2009). A moratorium

on office construction furthermore might also harm the possibilities for the conversion of

offices to housing as offices will remain in their present locations.

In conclusion one sees that conversion still has some potential in both Brussels and

Copenhagen. Especially the conversion of offices to housing has only started. Many pos-

sibilities for conversion will come on the market as buildings are getting more and more

aged. Also trends show that industrial buildings in the city centres will be filtered out by

! 73

33 291,66 sqm per flat. This looks quite high because common rooms like stairs, hallways included)

market forces and will be obliged to move to the periphery of the city next to the highway

and/or canals. Though in these locations a better protection of the weakest functions has

to be guaranteed as it helps to supply the city and creates jobs.

Table12 (own)

Function Present conversions to

Geographical loca-tion

Future posibilities

Housing (H) To H: mainly from offices and ware-houses

Central districts and old industrial zones bordering the his-torical city centre.

Highest possibilities of three functions for further. Lot"s of old offices in both CPH and BRU for conversions. Espe-cially when over-production of new offices continues.

Offices (O) To O: mainly from warehouses

Brussels:conversions only in CBD and bordering CBD.CPH has conver-sions to offices in the Canal zone.

little possibilities for new conversions to offices as major warehouses have been converted or are too specialized. No possibilities for converting housing to offices in BRU and not feasible in CPH.

Warehouses (W) Only from W / Still room for further conversions away from warehouses and workshops both in BRU and CPH.

Retail Most conversions in mixed projects with housing and offices

too few knowledge on subject

Ground floor con-versions on main axes is a possibility

! 74

6.4. Investors in Brussels and Copenhagen

Now we know what the potentialities for the future are, one can ask himself the ques-

tion, who is going to be the investors in this process?

The study of BRAT (2007) makes an important remark about the proprietaries that of-

fer the largest opportunity for conversion in Brussels. The occasional proprietary, mostly

linked to a joint stock company, are seen as the biggest opportunists of the market that

want to take the challenge of adaptive reuse. First they do not have the relational context

as their large institutional and professional competitors to renovate and rent their office

buildings. Secondly, they do not have the same financial power as their competitors. It is

therefore not unimaginable that they diversify their activities to more risky sectors (see

chapter 5.2.4) where they can earn money on. Institutional owners, professional and inter-

national investors furthermore are only interested in exploiting offices because

(BRAT,2007):

1. Housing has inferior yields compared to offices

2. Housing is much more complex than offices. One office building of 10.000 sqm can be

easily rented or sold to 1 owner, while a 10.000 sqm apartment building needs 100

buyers or renters (and then also checking 100 contracts).

3. Housing is highly regulated (compared to offices)

Factor 2 and 3 are the same for Copenhagen, and here investments in housing do

make sense for international investors, the importance of return on investment is therefore

of primary importance. This also might be the reason why Brussels has high amount inter-

national investors in the office market (over 50%) while they are almost absent on the

housing real estate (Dirckx et al, 2009). One of the reasons might be that the rental market

in Copenhagen is much wider (more different income groups) and larger than in Brussels

(see table 10). Brussels also has a much more complicated housing market than in Brus-

sels, just because of the absence of large investors. This peculiarity for Brussels (and Bel-

gium in general) is linked to prohibition of investment funds to invest in real estate up until

the middle of the nighties. Hereby pension and other investment funds are and were more

prominently active in the other European markets, like Copenhagen. In consequence it is

more typical for other European cities to have whole street-blocks built full of the same

apartments and/or housing and this by the private real estate market. Only the last 15

years Belgium came under the scope of investment funds via the start of investment com-

! 75

panies with fixed capital. Hereby Belgium lagged 40 years behind the Netherlands, Zwit-

serland, UK and others. The other peculiarity of the Brussels real estate market is the low

level of sales, a buildings is averagely only sold every 36 years. This is because of the

high registration cost for buying a property. Both factors are making the house market less

transparent and difficult to overview than in the rest of Europe, thus keeping away inves-

tors (Baltussen, 2010).

The conversion of offices, industry or other to housing will therefore be a case of

smaller and local investors. It is furthermore not weird that Brussels is also giving subsi-

dies to groups of families who want to buy up an old industrial building and refurbish it to

housing, as large scale investors see it as risky.

Interviews have proven that conversion of buildings is a specialisation as informal ne-

gotiation goes hand in hand with getting a building permit for a conversion. When archi-

tects, developers and state know each-other"s way of working, the process of conversion

goes much more easier(interview Ebbesen, Macgregor). Developers and architects there-

fore are chosen carefully on their experience with these kind of projects.

Developers are much more powerful in acquiring properties, as they can wait longer

than a normal private person, have the capital to do it and adjust the aim (function) on a

project by project basis. They furthermore know how the system works and the system

knows how they work, a consensus therefore is more easily reached.

Public sector is not only the actor that makes the rules, they mostly are large real es-

tate owners, such as railway companies, telephone, post, even the military, governmental

and other public institutions. Trends in Vienna, Copenhagen demonstrate how governmen-

tal institutions, mostly located in the city centre, move out of their older offices to gather

them in larger more efficient buildings at the edge of the city where new constructions are

possible. By restructuring and streamlining these institutions, large amounts of property

will become vacant and offer a significant opportunity to do functional reuse of buildings.

Almost 10% of all building projects undertaken in the city of Brussels are governmental

projects (www.brusselnieuws.be 21 Januari 2010). They hereby have an important influ-

ence in determining the future trends in the building sector. Via the BRDA, Brussels is also

responsible for a large share housing construction. They therefore can play an important

role in promoting reuse and trying to convert office in less profitable areas, hereby keeping

the conversion market open for all social classes.

! 76

In Denmark governmental functions are also moving out of the city to other parts of the

country. Though, Government and ministries are staying in the city centre of Copenhagen.

Brussels moreover has governmental institutions of international, national and local level,

which makes the public sector one of the most important actors for Brussels. Belgian,

Flemish and French community governmental institutions want to be located in the city of

Brussels as a symbol. Governmental functions in Brussels therefore will probably stay and

refurbish their old office buildings or search new locations in the city center. In general a

lower chance for converting governmental buildings can be found. Though one huge gov-

ernmental building, the Empire"s Administrative Center (Rijks Administratief Centrum), will

be one of the largest conversion project undertaken in Brussels. Part of the buildings will

be destroyed and replaced by new buildings, part will be converted.

To conclude one sees that Copenhagen has much more international developers ac-

tive on the conversion market to housing while Brussels has many private actors. This

leads to a different functioning of the market. The governments furthermore play an impor-

tant role in not only allowing but also in inducing reuse as they take up an important share

of construction activity and office use.

! 77

7.Conclusion

7.1. Synthesis

Adaptive reuse plays a significant role in supplying the new functional needs of Brus-

sels and Copenhagen. One third of the new dwellings added were provided by adaptive

reuse. Even one fifth of new office space came from reusing other buildings. Most of these

conversions happen within the historical city centre, as the physical characteristics of the

buildings together with a rising population support the process of adaptive reuse.

The change of standards in the office and warehouse sector was an important trigger

for adaptive reuse. In both cities one saw that old, non open-planned small offices lost

their feasibility for services. Today these less economical office spaces offer an ideal loca-

tion to house the rising number of urbanites. Physical obsolescence for one function, can

mean an opportunity for another one. Housing has been the biggest winner as it is less

demanding than office and warehouse activity and moreover has a huge market to supply

to. Above this, the legal framework was most supportive for allowing new housing to sprout

up and replace offices and warehouses. Housing itself on the other side was well pro-

tected in its own land-use kind, in Brussels a reuse away from housing was not allowed

without compensation. Though retail can also play an important role on functional reuse,

insufficient data and study has been made around this function to draw further conclu-

sions. In general both land-use plans allowed a considerable amount of conversion to

happen within the city. Brussels gave more opportunities in spatial planning to do adaptive

reuse than Copenhagen as Brussels offered more options for warehouses to convert to

housing and offices. The possibilities created by spatial planning therefore were also visi-

ble in the actual reuse, where housing was the most used reuse.

Though the legal framework created many opportunities for adaptive reuse, both cities

only have a limited awareness of the process. By giving a lower VAT-level for refurbish-

ment, Brussels unconsciously has given more financial support for the process of reuse

than Copenhagen. Copenhagen on the other side has a better legal framework to work in;

they have one standard for heated buildings and less dispersed power than in Brussels.

Hereby Copenhagen can better elaborate specific policies for adaptive reuse. Still both cit-

ies have a lack of policies and sufficient information to fully support adaptive reuse.

When the legal framework allowed a conversion, capitalist forces guided the process.

Hereby stronger economical functions pushed out the weaker. As capital forces can cut the

warehouse and workshop surface of Brussels in half in only two years, cities have to im-

! 78

plement protective measures to preserve wanted functions. In Brussels one saw that the

now stronger housing function can push out warehouse activity. This is a cause of the spa-

tial planning system of Brussels that is constructed around the idea of protecting the resi-

dential function from the powerful office real estate sector, and not for protecting other

functions from housing. To prevent the disappearance of a wanted function, a balanced

spatial planning should enforce a minimal amount of surface for each wanted function.

Copenhagen already has a more balanced urban planning where all functions are pro-

tected in one type of land-use, though this is limiting the flexibility and spontaneity of the

city to a certain degree. Spatial planners therefore have to think carefully to which extent

they allow cities to change.

At the moment market conditions are more favourable for Copenhagen. Housing

prices in the city centre of Copenhagen are competitive and surpass office prices in many

places of the historical core. Brussels on the other side has a much more ambiguous story

for the inner city. Though there are spots where housing and offices are competitive with

each other, the general pictures shows that housing has significant lower real estate

prices. Brussels will have a difficult time for allowing more adaptive reuse to arise via a

natural price competition as there is a fears competition with the surrounding regions and a

large share of the population cannot pay for higher housing prices. Already one saw that

most conversion projects from offices to housing were aimed at the higher classes. Both

cities therefore have the challenge to elaborate policies so adaptive reuse will have a posi-

tive social result on the city.

The restructuring of the office and warehouse-workshop sector also had an important

geographical impact. In Copenhagen this led to a partial move off the central business dis-

trict (CBD) from the historical city centre to the canal zone as the historical city centre is

fully protected and replacement by a built-to-suit was not allowed. Brussels also has many

obsolete offices, but past urban restructuring allowed large open-planned offices to sprout

up in the middle of the historical city centre. Here an oversupply of offices and obsoles-

cence of the oldest office district, the avenue Louise, is pushing adaptive reuse of offices.

The most mono-functional part of the CBD on the other hand is not undergoing adaptive

reuse and becoming more mixed, here market prices for offices are still too high to allow

housing to compete away part of the office market. Adaptive reuse of offices in Brussels

therefore has a more narrow geographical zone than Copenhagen.

! 79

Also warehouse activity has evolved. While warehouses bordering the historical core

of Brussels were being transformed into lofts, new huge warehouses were developed in

the periphery. The main reason why these warehouses were converted into housing and

not into offices is because Brussels" office real estate sector was not interested in the West

side of Brussels, as it was disconnected from the CBD and had a #bad" reputation. It there-

fore was perceived as risky to locate one"s offices over here. Housing in consequence had

few competition from offices. In Copenhagen on the other side, the CBD and the canal

zone lie next to each other, hereby the powerful office sector seized control over much of

this zone. Same causes, a changing office sector, therefore can have different results. This

means that location influences the kind of adaptive reuse. Next to location one sees that

the physical characteristics furthermore guide the geographical location of adaptive reuse.

Hereby Copenhagen supports more adaptive reuse than Brussels as the central office

sector in Copenhagen had less options for modernisation.

Not only the market conditions and physical characteristics created a different result in

the process of reuse, the actors furthermore are influencing how the market works. In Co-

penhagen international developers are much more active in the housing real estate sector

than a private person, while in Brussels reuse activities to housing seem to be guided by

local families and small entrepreneurs. The office sector on the other hand is very interna-

tional in both cities, in Brussels a switch from the international office sector to the local

housing sector therefore might create an extra threshold for further housing developments

out of offices. The different market conditions and actors in consequence will need differ-

ent kind of policies to support adaptive reuse. Brussels for example will need more fiscal

advantages or subsidies to bridge the gap between housing and office prices.

The state of the economy is a last factor that has to be taken into account in the proc-

ess of adaptive reuse. In times of economic prosperity adaptive reuse does rise, but takes

less advantage from the investments in the built fabric than new constructions. This is

linked with the limited amount of vacant space that can be adapted and reused. Therefore

in times of economic prosperity, the available space for conversion can be depleted and

new constructions become the most important supplier of new housing, offices, ware-

houses, etc.. A crisis in the office sector on the other hand can certainly help forward the

process off adaptive reuse. New office constructions that continued during the start of the

crisis created an oversupply and created the ability to cheaply leave the old office buildings

! 80

for new ones. The old offices come under a considerable price pressure and makes a con-

version to housing feasible.

New constructions therefore also play an important role in the process of reuse and

moreover also have their advantages as not all buildings are up for a long life or are able

to meet today"s standards. Hence adaptive reuse is not a single solution for supplying cit-

ies" needs. Still, where possible adaptive reuse should be applied as it carries a vast array

of positive influences on its environment. Hereby it is important to mention that the future

still holds a lot of opportunities for adaptive reuse to continue in Brussels and Copenha-

gen. Especially the office sector will be an important supplier for housing in the coming

decades.

7.2. New possible research questions

To better understand previously mentioned dynamics, further research on this topic is

needed. During research it became clear there is little known about the interaction be-

tween the FIRE sector and the government for promoting reuse and other processes re-

structuring our cities.

Furthermore a more elaborated study on the awareness of the possibilities and impor-

tance of functional reuse for policy makers, architects, FIRE-sector and public will allow to

better understand the dynamics of reuse. A lack of data on adaptive reuse was one of the

main thresholds for this study, therefore I propose a study to improve gathering of the info

on the building stock.

A last proposal would be to investigate which kind of instruments (information, subsi-

dies, fiscal policies, spatial planning) are most effective in promoting adaptive reuse.

! 81

8.Bibliography

Articles and Books

BALSAS C. L. I., City Centre Revitalization in Portugal: A Study of Lisbon and Porto Jour-

nal of Urban Design. Vol. 12. No. 2, June 2007, p. 231–259.

BALTUSSEN, L., Woningprijzen Blijven op Koers. Knack, 24 Februari 2010, pagina?

BARLOW, J. and GANN, D Offices into Flats. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, 1993.

BEAUREGARD, R. A. The Textures of Property Markets: Downtown Housing and Office

Conversions in New York City, Urban Studies, Vol. 42, No. 13, 2431 – 2445, Decem-

ber 2005.

BON, R. Building as an Economic Process: An Introduction to Building Economics,

Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, sustainable development? Building Research and

Information, 26(6) 1989, 340 ±350.

BON, R. and HUTCHINSON, K., Sustainable construction: some economic challenges,

Building Research and Information. Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, 2000, p. 310-314.

BRAND, S., How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They!re Built., Penguin Books,

1994.

BRAT, Les Possibilités de conversion d!immeubles de bureaux en immeubles à apparte-

ments- BRAT Bureau de Recherche d"Aménagement du Territoire sprl- Juillet 2007

BULLEN, P. A., Adaptive Reuse and sustainability of commercial buildings, Facilities, Em-

erald Group Publishing Limited. Vol. 25, No. 1/2, 2007, p. 20-31.

CAMPBELL, R, VANDERWARKER P, Cityscapes of Boston, Houghston Mifflin Company,

Boston, New York, 1992

! 82

CERAA, Centre d"Etude, de Recherche et d"Action en Architecture asbl, L!application de

Principes de la Maison Passive en Region de Bruxelles-Capitale, CERAA, 20 juin

2008

COEKELBERGHS, S. and DE BEULE, M., Review of Office Property - 2008 Permits Brus-

sels Capital region. 24/2009?

COPPENS, L., Spreidstand tussen Wonen en Lonen, De Standaard, www.standaard.be,

22 mei, 2010

COWAN, P. Studies in the growth, change and ageing of buildings in Transactions of the

Bartlett Society, 1, 1963 pp. 56–59

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS Our Towns

and Cities: the Future: Delivering the Urban Renaissance, White Paper, 16 November.

2000 HMSO, London.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT Planning Policy Guidance note 6: Town Centres

and Retail Development, June. HMSO, London, 1996

DEGREEF, C., Vastgoedmakelaar pleit voor bouwstop, Brussel Deze Week. 28 december

2009.

DESSOUROUX, C. Fifty years of office building production in Brussels A geographical

analysis, Brussels Studies, Issue 35, 22 February 2010 (mod. 26 Feb) ISSN 2031-

0293

DICKSON, M., BIGGS, B., CORNWELL, Building for a sustainable future: Construction

without depletion, The Institution of Structural Engineers. London, 1999.

DIRCKX, T., GOSOVIC, M., and STEINKUSZ, M., Internationalisation of Office Space in

Brussels. Université Libre de Bruxelles, 2009.

! 83

DOORNAERT, A., DE BEULE, M., HANSSENS, B, VANOBBERGHEN, J., RECOLLECTE,

D., Review of Office Property - Vacancy 2008 and Hidden Vacancy. Gewestelijke On-

twikkelingsmaatschappij Brussel/Brussels Regional Development Authoritiy, 23/2009.

DOORNAERT, A., DE BEULE, M., HANSSENS, B, VANOBBERGHEN, J., Review of office

property-Vacancy 2009,. Gewestelijke Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij Brussel/Brussels

Regional Development Authoritiy, 25/2010.

DRIVERS, J., KPMG, The Empty Homes Agency (2003a) Empty Property, Unlocking the

Potential, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, February 2003

DRIVERS, J., KPMG, The Empty Homes Agency, SWPM, DLA. Empty Property, Unlocking

the Potential - an implementation handbook. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Feb-

ruary 2003.

EMERY, J., Bullring, A case study of retail- led urban renewal and its contribution to city

centre regeneration. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, nr. 5, p. 121-133, 2006.

GANN, D. and BARLOW, J., Flexibility in building use: the technical feasibility of convert-

ing redundant offices into flats. Construction Management and Economics, nr. 14, p.

55-66, 1996.

GOLTON, B.L. Building obsolescence and the sustainability agenda. in CIB (Conseil inter-

national du bâtiment), Second international conference, Buildings and the Environ-

ment, Paris, 1997

GRAHAM, P. , Building Ecology, Blackwell Science, Oxford. 2003

GRATZ, R. & MINTZ, N. Cities Back from the Edge— New Life for Downtown (New York:

John Wiley, 1998

and Sons, Inc).

GRUEN, V. The Heart of Our Cities, The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure (New York: Si-

mon and Schuster) 1964

! 84

HANSENS, B., Evolutie Aanbod Werk- en Opslagplaatsen. Inventimmo.be, 2008.

HASSLER, U., KOHLER, N. and SCHAIGER, B., Industrial culture and preservation of re-

sources: the industrial building stock, Proceedings International Conference Sustain-

able Building, Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2000

HEATH, T., Adaptive re-use of offices for residential use, The experiences of London and

Toronto Cities. Elsevier Science Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 173–184, 2001.

HESLOP, D., Reuse: How Real Estate Recycles, Construction and Real Estate. Inside

Tucson Business, April 24, 2006, p. 15 -16.

HINDS, M., The Triumph of the Flexible Society: The Connectivity Revolution and Resis-

tance to Change. Praeger Publishers Inc, 30 november 2003.

ISTENDAEL, G., Het Belgisch labyrinth of De schoonheid der wanstaltigheid. Uitgeverij De

Arbeiderspers, Amsterdam, 1989.

JACOBS, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York, Vintage Books 1997

(original 1961)

JONES LANG LASALLE, Brussels City Report Q4 2010

KESTELOOT, C, Urban-Spatial Configurations and the Future of European Cities in Cities

of Europe, Changing Context, Local Arrangements, and The Challenge to Urban Co-

hesion, Yuri Kazepov, Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp 123 147

KINCAID, D., Adapting Buildings for Changing Uses, Guidelines for change of use and re-

furbishment. Spon Press, London and New York, 2002.

KOHLER, N., The relevance of green building challenge: an observer!s perspective, 1999

Building Research & Information, Vol. 27 Nos 4/5, pp. 309-20.

KOHLER, N. and HASSLER, U., The building stock as a research object, Building Re-

search & Information, Vol. 30 No. 4, 2002, pp. 226-36.

! 85

KRISTENSEN, H., Housing in Denmark, Centre for Housing and Welfare. Realdania Re-

search, 2007.

LAURIDSEN, J. and SKAK, M., Homeownsership in Denmark, Discussion Papers on

Business and Economics. No 2, 2007.

LYNCH, K., The Image of the City, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1960.

MASSEY, D., Regionalism: some current issues. Capital and Class, 1978.

MASSEY, D., In What Sense a Regional Problem? Regional Studies, No. 13, 1979, p. 233-

243.

MONCLUS, F., and GUARDIA, M., Culture Urbanism and Planning. Ashgate Publishing

Limted, 2006.

MYERS D. and WYATT, P., Rethinking urban capacity: identifying and appraising vacant

buildings Research and Information. 2004, p. 285–292.

OXLEY,M. Economics, Planning and Housing, Planning Environment and Cities (2004)

REEH, H., Four Ways of Overlooking Copenhagen in Steen Eiler Rasmussen in The Ur-

ban Lifeworld: Formation, Perception, Representation, Peter Madsen & Richard- Plunz

(ed.). London: Routledge, 2002.

REMøY H., and VAN DER VOORDT T. J. M., A new life: conversion of vacant office build-

ings into housing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Facilities, Vol. 25, No. 3/4, 2007,

p. 88-103.

RUDLIN, D., and FALK, N (1999) Building the 21st Century Home: the Sustainable Urban

Neighbourhood. Architectural Press, Oxford, 1999

RYPKEMA, D. The importance of downtown in the 21st century, Journal of the American

Planning, 2003

Association, 69(1), pp. 9 – 15.

SADOLIN, A., Copenhagen and Malmö Market Report. 2010.

! 86

SCOTT, F., On Altering Architecture. Routledge press, 2008.

SIGWORTH, E.M. and WILKINSON, R.K., Rebuilding or renovation? Urban Studies, 4(2),

1967, p. 399–404.

The European Urban Charter. Proceedings, Sofia, May 2002 (Studies and texts No. 85),

2003.

URBAN TASK FORCE (1999) Towards an urban renaissance. Final Report of the Urban

Task Force. E. and F.N. Spon, London, 1999

URBED (1998) Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Urban Reform. Friends of the Earth and

WISE, London, 1998

VAN MIERLO, S, City of Brussels understands the Project Developer, VGM Real Estate,

March 2006

VERBROUCK, H., Y-a-t-il encore une place pour les entreprises dans la ville, Diminution

importante des ateliers en Région de Bruxelles – Capitale. Etude SDRB-GOMB, Direc-

tion Expansion Economique, 2007.

WHITEHAND, J.W.R., Changing suburban landscapes at the microscale. Tijdschrift voor

economische en sociale geografie, nr. 92, 2001, p. 171-177.

WHITEHAND, J.W.R., Conzenian Urban Morpholgy and Urban Landscapes. Proceedings,

6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, 2007.

WHYTE, W. City: Rediscovering the Center (New York: Doubleday) 1988

WITT, H., Spatial Planning in Denmark, Ministery of the Environment. Spatial Planning

Department, Denmark, 2002.

WOODS, M. A Financial Stability Analysis of the Irish Commercial, Property Market, Fi-

nancial Stability Report 2007 pp.75-90

WUEST, H., Flächennutzung der Industrie 1991 und Flächenbedarf bis zum Jahr 1995.

Internal report, Industrie Engineering, Zürich,1995.

! 87

Internet Sources

AWAAD, J. A., Declarations of content of statistics Denmark, Manufacturing and construc-

tion, Statistics Denmark. internet 2010.

http://www.dst.dk/HomeUK/Guide/documentation/Varedeklarationer/emnegruppe/emne.as

px?sysrid=000930

Copenhagens municipality plan - KØBENHAVNS KOMMUNEPLAN, 2009

! http://www.kk.dk/kp09.aspx

Prices of Real Estate in Denmark

http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Denmark

Regional Building codes of Brussels/ Gewestelijke Stedenbouwkundige Verordeningen. 21

November 2006.

! http://www.rru.irisnet.be/nl/projet/projetnl.htm

Regional Destination Plan of Brussels

! http://www.pras.irisnet.be/PRAS/NL

Regional Development Plan of Brussels

! http://www.gewop.irisnet.be /

Statistics Belgium, 2010, Population Statistics

! http://statbel.fgov.be/nl/statistieken/cijfers/bevolking/structuur/woonplaats/index.jsp

Statistik Kobenhavn

! http://www.kk.dk/statistik.aspx

Statistics Denmark, 2010

! http://www.statistikbanken.dk /

Videos

! 88

BRAND, S., (1997), (film) How buildings learn by Steward Brand, Flow, The Low Road

and The Romance of Maintenance BBC, 1997

! 89

10.Attachments

10.1. Interview questions

I. What are the reasons for reusing a building?

II. What are the most flexible buildings for reuse? And why?

A. Office buildings are being constructed for shorter lifecycles. Buildings con-

structed of durable materials have the possibility to live on and be reused, are there

a lot of buildings in ... that cannot be reused because of the bad choice of materi-

als?

B. What are the places with the highest potential for flexible reuse?

C. What is the potential flexibility of the city centre of Copenhagen/Brussels?

III. What is the most practiced reuse and why?

IV. What and who can promote the adaptive reuse of buildings? Subsidies, better

spatial planning, ... organisations for awareness

V. What are good indicators to measure the reuse of buildings?

VI. What can severely limit the reuse of buildings (spatial planning limitations, building

codes and structure)?

A. How can this problem be solved ?

VII. Is it an active policy of the government to reuse buildings? If yes, in which way

does the government try to promote it?

A. Does it take any longer to get a building permit for a reuse than for a new con-

struction?

B. Can the urban planning department react sufficiently on functional changes

asked by developers. Is there too much detail in planing to have a spontaneous re-

adjustment of the city?

C. Is it easy for a private person to change the spatial plan to its need (shop has to

become bigger than regulation, one shop more than allowed) or office is exceeding

the max allowed amount of floor space?

D. If you could change something in urban planning, what would you change?

VIII. Does long-lasting vacancy have an influence on the reuse of buildings?

IX. Do economical problems in a particular sector promote reuse to another function?

In example Harbour activities and Office real estate.

X. Do you see any particular waves (periods) of reuse?

! 90

XI. What are the biggest hurdles that have to be taken during reuse and are there any

extra costs attached to it?

XII. Is there a relaxation of spatial planning during last 10-20 years

XIII. Is the 20 procent flexibility in housing in Copenhagen meant for ground floor use

flexibility or for building block flexibility

XIV.Why are spatial planners still using functionalism to control the structure of cities.,

as some area"s are not allowed to have mixed uses?

XV. Is it an active policy of the government to reuse buildings? If yes, in which way

does the government try to promote it?

XVI.Do you see any particular waves (periods) of reuse?

XVII.How do you count mixed-function buildings?

XVIII.how do you querry potential candidates for conversions?

! 91

10.2. Three rings of municipalities used for Research (own)

Municipality of Brussels

First ring ( Anderlecht, Etterbeek, Elsene-Ixelles, Molenbeek, Sint/Saint-Gilles,

Sint-Joost/Saint-Josse, Schaarbeek)

Second ring (Ukkel-Uccle, Watermaal-Bosvoorde, Sint-Pieters & Sint-Lambrechts

Woluwe, Oudergem, Sint-Agath-Berchem, Ever, Vorst, Ganshoren, Jette, Koekelberg)

! 92

10.3. Concentration of offices in Brussels

Office density (sqm/ sqkm) (Source Ministerie van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest,

BISA - URBIS)

MBHG - BISA Pagina 1

Kantoordichtheid 2007 (m!/km!)

Bron: BROH URBIS

Ministerie van het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest © BISA - URBIS © ®

10.4. Office areas authorised for conversion by use category (1997-2008)

(Coekelberghs & De Beule, 2009 : 8)

Regularisation under Article 330§3 of the CoBAT (see below) only represents a very small proportion (5 600 m!, or 11 %) of the total growth in surface area, and is mostly the result of the renovation of existing buildings accompanied by sometimes significant increases in surface area (addition of levels).

Inversement, ce sont les reconversions vers d’autres utilisations que le bureau qui contri-buent le plus à la diminution du parc de bureaux existant. Rares sont en effet les rénovations accompagnées d’une diminution (démolition) des superficies de bureaux (par exemple, agran-dissement d’un atrium via la suppression d’une mezzanine). La figure 2 montre aussi l’ampleur des reconversions à Bruxelles-Ville (notamment avenue Louise) mais aussi, dans des mesures non négligeables, à Ixelles, Saint-Gilles, Schaerbeek et les deux Woluwé. Le cas d’Etterbeek est plus particulier dès lors qu’il s’agit d’un changement de destination lié à l’occupation des lieux par la représentation auprès de l’Europe d’une entité fédérée (consi-dérée par le PRAS comme équipement).

La reconversion de 73.400 m! de bureaux a ainsi été autorisée en 2008 (figure 3), en grande majorité vers le logement (65 %) mais aussi vers les hôtels / flats-hôtels (11 %, repris dans la catégorie ‘autres’) et les équipements médicaux (6 %). Les reconversions de bureaux en équipements à usage d’ambassades / repré-sentations diplomatiques, formellement impo-sées par le PRAS (lorsqu’un immeuble de bureau est occupé par une ambassade ou une représentation diplomatique, il change d’affec-tation selon le PRAS pour être qualifié d’équi-pement d’intérêt collectif ou de service public), ne concernent que 9 % du total des reconver-sions (2 permis). Les reconversions en équipe-ments (non seulement vers des représentations diplomatiques mais aussi des services locaux de proximité, par exemple des maisons de l’emploi) sont très probablement sous-esti-mées, car rien ne dit que les permis pour sim-ple changement d’affectation sont systématiquement introduits. La lecture régu-lière de la presse met en avant des reconver-sions qui n’ont pas fait l’objet d’un permis et qui ne sont dès lors pas enregistrées dans cet observatoire qui s’attache uniquement à une situation existante de droit (et non de fait).

Les reconversions concernent des bâtiments entiers initialement conçus pour une fonction de type administratif / économique (par exem-ple, la reconversion en seniorie de l’ancien site de RTL, avenue Ariane2, dans un environ-nement guère attractif pour une telle fonction, ou encore deux autres reconversions en rési-dences pour étudiants dans le Pentagone), mais aussi des parties d’immeubles. De nom-breuses surfaces situées dans des hôtels de maître ou des immeubles à appartements de caractère retrouvent en effet leur fonction résidentielle d’origine, prouvant ainsi l’attrac-tivité retrouvée de l’habitat. On enregistre

également un certain nombre de reconver-sions vers le logement dans le Pentagone, signe de son dynamisme résidentiel croissant. Enfin, on retiendra aussi la reconversion d’un petit immeuble de bureaux (2.100 m!) en logements en plein cœur du quartier Léopold.

Omgekeerd is de vermindering van het bestaande kantorenpark in hoofdzaak toe te schrijven aan reconversies van kantoren in andere bestemmingen. Er zijn immers zeer wei-nig renovatieprojecten die gepaard gaan met een vermindering (afbraak) van de kantoorop-pervlakten (bijvoorbeeld, uitbreiding van een atrium via de verwijdering van een mezzanine). Figuur 2 toont eveneens de omvang van de reconversies in Brussel-Stad (met name in de Louizalaan) maar ook de reconversies in Elsene, Sint-Gillis, Schaarbeek en de twee Woluwes zijn niet te verwaarlozen. De toestand in Etterbeek is een bijzonder geval, omdat het daar gaat om een bestemmingswijziging die te maken heeft met de ingebruikname van de ruimte door de vertegenwoordiging van een gefedereerde entiteit bij Europa (die door het GBP wordt beschouwd als voorziening).

Zo werd in 2008 de reconversie van 73.400 m! kantoorruimte vergund (figuur 3), waarvan het overgrote gedeelte in woningen (65 %), maar ook een deel in hotels / flathotels (11 %, opge-nomen in de categorie “andere”) en medische voorzieningen (6 %). De reconversies van kanto-ren in voorzieningen voor ambassades / diplo-matieke vertegenwoordigingen, die formeel zijn voorgeschreven door het GBP (wanneer een kan-toorgebouw wordt gebruikt door een ambassade of een diplomatieke vertegenwoordiging, veran-dert het volgens het GBP van bestemming en wordt het bestempeld als voorziening van collec-tief belang of van openbare diensten), maakt slechts 9 % uit van het totaal van de reconver-sies (2 vergunningen). De reconversies in voor-zieningen (niet alleen voor diplomatieke vertegenwoordigingen maar ook voor buurtdien-sten, zoals bijvoorbeeld werkwinkels) worden naar alle waarschijnlijkheid onderschat, omdat niets zegt dat de vergunningen voor een eenvou-dige bestemmingswijziging systematisch worden aangevraagd. We lezen regelmatig in de pers over reconversies waarvoor geen vergunning werd afgeleverd, en die worden dan ook niet in aanmerking genomen voor dit Overzicht, dat zich enkel toespitst op de bestaande rechtstoe-stand (en niet op de feitelijke toestand).

De reconversies hebben voornamelijk betrek-king op volledige gebouwen die aanvankelijk een bestemming van het administratieve / economische type hadden (bijvoorbeeld de reconversie in bejaardentehuis van de vroe-gere RTL-site in de Arianelaan2, in een omge-ving die allesbehalve aantrekkelijk kan worden genoemd voor zo’n functie, of twee andere reconversies in studentenwoningen in de Vijfhoek), maar ook op delen van gebouwen. Heel wat oppervlakten in herenhuizen of karaktervolle appartementsgebouwen krijgen

hun oorspronkelijke woonfunctie terug, wat aantoont dat de huisvesting een stuk aan aan-trekkingskracht heeft teruggewonnen. We noteren ook een aantal reconversies in wonin-gen in de Vijfhoek, een teken van de groei-ende woondynamiek in dit gebied. Ten slotte onthouden we ook de reconversie van een klein kantoorgebouw (2.100 m!) in woningen in het hartje van de Leopoldwijk.

Conversely, redevelopment for alternative uses contributes most to the reduction in the exist-ing office stock. Renovations are rarely accompanied by a reduction (demolition) of office space (for example, enlargement of an atrium by the removal of a mezzanine). Figure 2 also shows the scale of redevelop-ment in Brussels-Town (in particular on Avenue Louise) but also, to a non-negligible extent, in Ixelles, Saint-Gilles, Schaerbeek and the two Woluwe areas. Etterbeek is a more particular case, with a change of use due to the occupation of premises by the European representation of a federal entity (classed by the PRAS as a facility).

The redevelopment of 73 400 m! of offices was thus authorised in 2008 (figure 3), mostly for housing purposes (65 %) but also for hotels / aparthotels (11 %, included under ‘other’) and medical facilities (6 %). The conversion of offices to facilities used by embassies / diplo-matic representations, a distinction formally imposed by the PRAS (when an office building is occupied by an embassy or a diplomatic rep-resentation the PRAS records a change of use and reclassifies it as a public service or public facility) only affects 9 % of the total redevelop-ment (2 permits). Conversion to facility use (not only for diplomatic representations but also for local public services such as employ-ment centres) is very probably under-esti-mated, since there is nothing to suggest that applications are regularly submitted for permits for a simple change of use. Regular reading of the press highlights the redevelopments which have not been the subject of a permit and which are not therefore recorded in this Review, which only reports the situation exist-ing in law (and not de facto).

Redevelopments may involve entire buildings originally intended for administrative or eco-nomic uses (for example, the redevelopment of the former RTL site on Avenue Ariane as a rest home2, in surroundings which hardly seem suit-able for such a use; or two other redevelopments to provide student residences in the Pentagon), but can also involve parts of buildings. Many surfaces situated in up-market houses or apart-ment buildings of character are being restored to their original residential use, thus demon-strating the regained attraction of housing. A number of conversions to housing have also been recorded in the Pentagon, a sign of its increasing residential dynamism. Finally we also note the redevelopment of a small office build-ing (2 100 m!) to provide housing in the heart of the Léopold district.

Fig. 3

m2

market in which the vacancy rate in 2008 was 8.9 % (see Office Property Review No 23, p. 7), without counting the empty buildings which are not offered for rental (“hidden vacancy”), 18 % of the stock in total.

A closer analysis of the permits issued in 2008, illustrated by figure 1, demonstrates the very high proportion represented by the renovation of the existing office stock (398 274 m!) and, as a corollary, the low level of new developments1 (48 542 m!). These data should be supplemented with the growth/reduction in office surface areas recorded in existing buildings. When compared with the data available since 1997, it can be seen that the surface area authorised for new developments stands at its lowest in 2008. This aspect must be seen against the gloomy financial and economic background. No permits were issued in 2008 for the construction of office tower blocks.

Furthermore, the redevelopment of offices for other uses continued at a sustained rate, as we will see below (figure 3).

The general trend resembles that observed in 2007 (figure 1) : the renovation and redevelop-ment of the existing stock rather than the cre-ation of new surface areas. The new surface areas are principally located in the decentral-ised municipalities (figure 2), in particular in Evere (Rue de Genève) and, to a lesser extent, in Auderghem, in the Hermann-Debroux dis-trict (new construction).

This can only be surprising, given the problems encountered by office developments in decen-tralised districts, especially those ill-served by public transport. It will also be seen that the creation of new office surface areas in Brussels-Town mainly involve a change of use, in particular the redevelopment of the former Customs House on the Tour & Taxis site.

Figure 2 also demonstrates the logical prepon-derance of Brussels-Town, with an exceptional concentration in comparison with previous years, recording 78 % of the total authorised surface areas. Evere follows, with 10 % of authorised surface areas (as a result of the new surface areas mentioned above). The large-scale permits registered in 2008 for renovation / redevelopment relate to the Fortis headquarters in Rue Royale (restructuring of a complex of buildings and the creation of inde-pendent units), the European Council develop-ment at the Résidence Palace (addition of a vast glazed area) and the Realex building (demolition / reconstruction) on Rue de la Loi. These three sites alone represent almost a third of the office surface areas admitted in 2008.

Figure 2 demonstrates once again the prepon-derance of Brussels-Town in terms of growth of the existing stock.

AutreAnderOther EquipementVoorzieningEquipment

CommerceHandel Commercial premises

LogementHuisvestingHousing

! 93